Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
USAspending MCP Server

USAspending MCP Server

by haydentbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Autocomplete USAspending Recipients

usaspending_autocomplete_recipient
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and autocomplete recipient names, UEIs, or DUNS values to populate USAspending filter fields.

Instructions

Search recipient names, UEIs, and DUNS values for use in USAspending filters.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "search_text": "<search_text>"
    },
    "name": "usaspending_autocomplete_recipient"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
search_textYes
limitNo
recipient_levelsNo
response_formatNoOutput format: markdown for readable summaries, json for raw structured data.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about searching specific identifiers, but does not detail partial matching or case sensitivity.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently with no superfluous words.

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?

Given the 4 parameters and lack of output schema, the description provides only basic context; more detail on return structure or parameter options would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (25% only for response_format). The description does not elaborate on search_text, limit, or recipient_levels beyond the schema, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('recipient names, UEIs, and DUNS values'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that autocomplete agencies.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., autocomplete_agency) is provided, but the name and description imply its purpose for filtering recipients.

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