Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
orbit-sentinel-mcp

orbit-sentinel-mcp

by Viventine-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

search_federal_awards

Read-only

Find U.S. federal contracts and IDVs by recipient, agency, award type, NAICS, or minimum amount, with results linked to resolved recipient entities and sorted by award amount.

Instructions

Search U.S. federal awards (USAspending contracts + IDVs) by recipient, agency, award type, NAICS, or minimum amount, joined to the resolved recipient entity. Ordered by award amount (largest first). Use for 'NASA contracts to Boeing over $1B' or an operator's federal funding footprint.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows returned (default 50, max 500). The response total is the full match count regardless of limit; rows cannot be paged, so answer counting questions from total. Output keeps the rows that fit in about 40 KB and says how many it left out
naicsNoNAICS code prefix (e.g. 5415 for computer systems design)
sinceNoOnly awards starting on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
agencyNoSubstring match on awarding/sub/funding agency (e.g. NASA, Department of Defense)
entity_idNoFilter by resolved recipient entity UUID
recipientNoSubstring match on recipient/company name (e.g. boeing)
award_typeNoAward type: 'contract' or 'idv'
min_amountNoMinimum award amount in USD (e.g. 1000000000 for $1B+)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max results (default 50, max 500)"New value: +"Max rows returned (default 50, max 500). The response total is the full match count regardless of limit; rows cannot be paged, so answer counting questions from total. Output keeps the rows that fit in about 40 KB and says how many it left out"
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered by award amount largest-first and are joined to the resolved recipient entity. It omits the non-pageable/40KB truncation behavior, though the limit parameter description carries that.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: the resource and scope come first, then ordering, then concrete usage examples. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Covers purpose, filterable dimensions, ordering, and usage examples for an 8-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema. The main residual gap is the shape of a returned row (which award fields come back), which the description leaves implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the prefix semantics of naics and the truncation behavior of limit. The description restates the filter set and hints that entity_id refers to a resolved entity, but adds no syntax or matching detail (substring vs exact, date range ends) beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search U.S. federal awards, USAspending contracts + IDVs) plus the exact filter dimensions and the join to resolved recipient entities. An agent can distinguish it from search_sec_filings or search_entities without opening any schema.

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 'Use for ...' sentence with two concrete example queries gives a clear application context ('NASA contracts to Boeing over $1B', federal funding footprint). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. whether to resolve a company via search_entities first.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools