Skip to main content
Glama
datanexusmcp

DataNexus MCP

Official
by datanexusmcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

govcon_fetch_vendor_contract_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a vendor's complete federal contract history: total award value, top agencies, contract types, and recent awards with dates.

Instructions

Fetch the complete federal contract award history for a specific vendor. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. vendor_name: Company or organisation name e.g. Booz Allen Hamilton. Required. Fuzzy match used. jurisdiction: One of US, EU, or UK. Optional. Default US. Returns total award value, top awarding agencies, contract types, and recent awards with amounts and dates. Use this when researching a specific company's government contracting history. Use govcon_search_contract_awards instead when exploring a topic area without a specific vendor. Verified source: USASpending.gov. 4-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="govcon_fetch_vendor_contract_history", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendor_nameYesVendor or company name to search e.g. Booz Allen Hamilton. Required.
jurisdictionNoJurisdiction: US, EU, or UK. Default US. Optional.US

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction / description
      Added value: +"Jurisdiction: US, EU, or UK. Default US. Optional."
    • addedInput schema / properties / vendor_name / description
      Added value: +"Vendor or company name to search e.g. Booz Allen Hamilton. Required."
  2. Addedv2.1.8
  3. Removedv2.1.7
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces these with 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds further details: fuzzy matching, cache duration, verified source. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and groups information logically (purpose, safety, parameters, usage, source, cache, fallback). A slightly tighter structure could remove redundancy, but it remains effective.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lists key return fields. It covers safety, parameters, usage, alternatives, source, cache, and even error handling via report_feedback. For a two-parameter tool with rich annotations, this is fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by noting 'Fuzzy match used' for vendor_name, which goes beyond the schema. With high baseline, the addition earns a score above 3.

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 states the tool fetches 'complete federal contract award history for a specific vendor' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'govcon_search_contract_awards' by specifying when to use each, ensuring clear differentiation.

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 tells when to use ('when researching a specific company's government contracting history') and when not to use ('use govcon_search_contract_awards instead when exploring a topic area without a specific vendor'). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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