Federal Grant Evidence

Analyze a federal grant

analyze_federal_grant

Use this when the user needs a sourced go/no-go pursuit screen for one U.S. federal grant using a non-personal organization profile and the official opportunity record. The current preview is always free and explicitly marks unresolved project relevance, document, or award-history evidence. Do not use it for discovery only, legal eligibility advice, award prediction, drafting, or submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`organization`	Yes
`opportunity_id`	Yes	Numeric Grants.gov opportunity id from search_federal_grants

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`funding`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`programs`	Yes
`hardGates`	Yes
`chargeable`	Yes
`unresolved`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`opportunity`	Yes
`reasonCodes`	Yes
`organization`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`recommendation`	Yes
`productRelevance`	Yes
`resultCompleteness`	Yes
`officialRecordFreshness`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / officialRecordFreshness
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "schemaVersion",
-  "chargeable",
-  "resultCompleteness",
-  "recommendation",
-  "reasonCodes",
-  "opportunity",
-  "organization",
-  "hardGates",
-  "productRelevance",
-  "funding",
-  "programs",
-  "unresolved",
-  "sources",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "schemaVersion",
+  "chargeable",
+  "resultCompleteness",
+  "recommendation",
+  "reasonCodes",
+  "opportunity",
+  "organization",
+  "hardGates",
+  "productRelevance",
+  "funding",
+  "programs",
+  "unresolved",
+  "sources",
+  "limitations",
+  "officialRecordFreshness"
+]

First observedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal non-read-only, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: the preview is always free, and the output explicitly marks unresolved project relevance, document, or award-history evidence. This gives agents a realistic sense of output behavior without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the primary use case, then deliver exclusions and behavioral expectations. There is no filler, and every clause adds decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, exclusions, output behavior, and cost. The output schema and input schema carry the remaining structural details. The main gap is that the organization parameter semantics are left under-specified, but this is partially captured in the parameter-semantics dimension.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low at 50%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented organization object. It only characterizes the organization parameter as 'non-personal' and refers to the 'official opportunity record'; it does not explain required fields like entity_type/state or optional fields like can_meet_cost_share and requested_amount_usd.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('analyze'), a specific resource ('one U.S. federal grant'), and a specific outcome ('sourced go/no-go pursuit screen'). It also lists what the tool is not for, which helps distinguish it from siblings like search_federal_grants and analyze_nofo_requirements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user needs a sourced go/no-go pursuit screen') and gives clear exclusions ('Do not use it for discovery only, legal eligibility advice, award prediction, drafting, or submission'). It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops just short of the strongest routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Federal Grant Evidence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.