Skip to main content
Glama
AEGISGOVDAO

Aegis Gov Contracts MCP

Official
by AEGISGOVDAO
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: searching for opportunities, retrieving details of a specific one, and performing bid analysis. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., search_opportunities, get_opportunity_details, analyze_bid_potential).

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused government contract assistant, covering the essential workflows without being bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers search, details, and analysis, which are core tasks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to track or favorite opportunities), but the surface is functional.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, and the description only mentions 'FREE — no payment required.' It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, pagination, or whether it is read-only.

    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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second lists filters and cost. No fluff.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    No output schema or annotations. Description does not describe return values or result structure. For a search tool with 6 optional parameters, more context is needed.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description restates the filter types but adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 clearly states the tool searches active US government contract opportunities from SAM.gov with filters. It distinguishes from siblings 'analyze_bid_potential' and 'get_opportunity_details' by focusing on search/filtering.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies searching first but doesn't explicitly state to use it before analyzing or getting details.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool is free and gets full details, but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, what happens with invalid IDs, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is insufficient.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It tells the purpose and that it's free, but lacks details on what 'full details' encompasses or any usage context.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'noticeId' with description 'SAM.gov notice ID'. The description adds 'by notice ID' which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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 clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'full details for a specific SAM.gov contract opportunity', and the input 'by notice ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_opportunities (which searches) and analyze_bid_potential (which analyzes).

    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 implies the tool should be used when you have a specific notice ID and want full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tool names provides some clarity.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool is AI-powered and returns a score/recommendation, but does not disclose limitations, latency, error handling, or potential reliability issues. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

    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 sentences: first explains the core function and adds 'AI-powered' context, second lists outputs. No wasted words, key information front-loaded.

    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?

    Given no annotations or output schema, the description reasonably covers inputs (noticeId required, companyProfile optional) and outputs (score, recommendation, strengths, risks). It could mention error scenarios or output structure, but is adequate for its complexity.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described (noticeId as SAM.gov notice ID, companyProfile as brief company description). The description adds 'AI-powered' but no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 clearly states the tool performs AI-powered bid/no-bid analysis for government contract opportunities, and lists specific outputs (score, recommendation, strengths, risks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_opportunity_details, search_opportunities) which are for retrieving details and searching, not analysis.

    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 implies usage when a bid recommendation is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. However, sibling tools have different purposes, so context is reasonably clear.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

aegisgov-contracts-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aegisgov-contracts-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AEGISGOVDAO/aegisgov-contracts-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server