Skip to main content
Glama
blencorp

Capture MCP Server

by blencorp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

search_usaspending_awards_by_recipient

Search federal spending awards by recipient name and filter by year, amount, or award type to investigate specific organizations.

Instructions

Search for federal awards by recipient name, with optional filters for time period and amount ranges. Great for investigating specific companies or organizations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results (default: 10, max: 100)
cursorNoPage number from the prior response's next_cursor. Reuse the same filters and limit when paging.
max_amountNoMaximum award amount filter
min_amountNoMinimum award amount filter
award_typesNoAward type codes from one USASpending group only (default ['A','B','C','D'] for contract prime awards). Search contracts, IDVs, grants, loans, and other assistance groups separately.
fiscal_yearNoFiscal year to search by award action date (e.g., 2024)
recipient_nameYesName of recipient to search (e.g., 'Boeing', 'Johns Hopkins')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / award_types / description
      Previous value: -"Award type codes to filter (e.g., ['10'] for contracts)"New value: +"Award type codes from one USASpending group only (default ['A','B','C','D'] for contract prime awards). Search contracts, IDVs, grants, loans, and other assistance groups separately."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page number from the prior response's next_cursor. Reuse the same filters and limit when paging.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / fiscal_year / description
      Previous value: -"Fiscal year to search (e.g., 2024)"New value: +"Fiscal year to search by award action date (e.g., 2024)"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for federal awards,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose meaningful behavior such as cursor-based pagination, the one-group restriction on award_types, the default limit, or what the response contains.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words. The use-case sentence earns its place by helping with tool selection.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain pagination, award-type grouping constraints, or how this search relates to sibling tools, although the rich schema descriptions compensate for some of the gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level mapping of 'time period and amount ranges' to filters, which provides marginal value but does not go beyond what the schema already documents.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching federal awards by recipient name, and it names the key filters (time period and amount ranges). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_usaspending_awards or get_award_detail.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Great for investigating specific companies or organizations' gives an implied use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are never referenced or differentiated.

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