Skip to main content
Glama
agilesix

CommonGrants Grant Seeker

by agilesix
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_opportunity retrieves by ID, list_grant_sources enumerates available sources, and search_opportunities queries across sources. No confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, action-oriented names (get, list, search).

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the lower end but adequately covers the core workflow of listing sources, searching, and retrieving details. Slightly below the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for a focused server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers essential grant-seeking operations. Minor gaps include lack of a dedicated list_all_opportunities tool, but search_opportunities without source effectively fills this role.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • 14 of 14 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Get the full details' is consistent. The description adds the context that it returns full details beyond the annotations, which are adequate. No contradiction.

    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?

    Single sentence with no fluff, clear and efficient.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what it does, the key parameters are covered, and sibling tools provide additional 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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description's 'by ID from one source' maps to id and source but adds no additional meaning 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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a specific grant opportunity', specifying the scope 'by ID from one source'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_grant_sources (which lists sources) and search_opportunities (which searches across opportunities).

    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 when to use: when you have an ID and source and need full details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like searching or listing. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on exclusion.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context that the output is specifically CommonGrants-compliant APIs, going beyond the annotation to clarify scope. No contradictions.

    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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without excess. Every word contributes meaning.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly defines the tool's action and output type, and the siblings provide context. openWorldHint=false is already in annotations.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and with zero parameters, baseline is 4.

    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 it lists 'CommonGrants-compliant APIs this server can search,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_opportunity, search_opportunities) which focus on opportunities, not grant sources.

    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 this tool is used to discover available APIs before searching. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the purpose is clear and no exclusion is needed for such a simple tool.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that results are 'combined, labeled' when fanning out, providing useful context beyond 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 concise sentences/paragraphs. Front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose with no wasted words.

    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?

    For a search tool with no output schema, description adequately covers multi-source behavior and parameter usage. Could mention return format, but not required.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the behavior of the 'source' parameter (fan-out vs targeting), which is not in the schema.

    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?

    Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'grant opportunities across CommonGrants sources'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (get_opportunity, list_grant_sources) by indicating multi-source search.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly explains when to omit 'source' to search all sources and when to provide it for targeting one. References list_grant_sources for available values, providing clear guidance.

    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

cg-mcp-grant-seeker MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cg-mcp-grant-seeker 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/agilesix/cg-mcp-grant-seeker'

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