Skip to main content
Glama
blencorp

Capture MCP Server

by blencorp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_award_detail

Retrieve a single procurement award's complete FPDS record from USASpending to verify competition details, including type set-aside, extent competed, and offers received, before citing in a memo.

Instructions

Get the full FPDS record for a single procurement award from USASpending — the verification primitive: type_set_aside with description, extent_competed, number_of_offers_received, other_than_full_and_open competition authority, and current vs ultimate completion dates. Use it to confirm that a filtered search actually returned what it claimed before a number goes in a memo. Accepts a procurement generated award ID (CONT_AWD_... or CONT_IDV_...) or a bare PIID (resolved via award search first). Assistance IDs (ASST_...) are rejected because they do not carry FPDS competition fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
award_idYesUSASpending procurement generated_unique_award_id (e.g. 'CONT_AWD_36C10B26F0223_3600_47QRCA24DV006_4732') or a bare PIID (e.g. '36C10B26F0223')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / award_id / description
      Previous value: -"USASpending generated_unique_award_id (e.g. 'CONT_AWD_36C10B21D0042_3600_-NONE-_-NONE-') or a bare PIID (e.g. '36C10B21D0042')"New value: +"USASpending procurement generated_unique_award_id (e.g. 'CONT_AWD_36C10B26F0223_3600_47QRCA24DV006_4732') or a bare PIID (e.g. '36C10B26F0223')"
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses concrete behaviors: acceptable ID formats (CONT_AWD_, CONT_IDV_, bare PIID), resolution of bare PIIDs via award search, and rejection of ASST_ IDs with rationale. It also names the specific FPDS competition fields returned, giving agents a clear expectation of the response.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose, then usage, then constraints; no filler or repetition of schema content. The ID examples are embedded in the schema example, and the description complements rather than repeats.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it specifies the main returned fields, accepted/rejected input forms, and the intended verification workflow. It doesn't describe an output format, but the enumerated fields and ID handling make it sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results.

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?

The schema already documents award_id with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two accepted ID forms and which IDs are rejected, going beyond the schema's example.

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 retrieves a single procurement award's full FPDS record from USASpending and enumerates the verification-specific fields it contains. The phrase 'verification primitive' plus field list distinguishes it from search and aggregation sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly tells agents to use this tool to confirm a filtered search result before relying on a number, and it states when not to use it by rejecting ASST_ IDs. It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, but the search-confirmation context is clear.

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