Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
USAspending MCP Server

USAspending MCP Server

by haydentbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get USAspending Award Detail

usaspending_get_award
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed USAspending award profile data using a unique award ID or internal database ID.

Instructions

Get detailed USAspending award profile data by generated unique award ID or internal award database ID.

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": {
      "award_id": "<award_id>"
    },
    "name": "usaspending_get_award"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
award_idYes
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. Description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, direct. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with good annotations, but could mention typical usage or field coverage. No output schema increases burden slightly.

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?

Description clarifies the purpose of award_id (by unique ID or database ID), but does not describe response_format beyond schema. Schema covers 50% of parameters, and description partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed award profile data by award ID or internal database ID. It distinguishes from search-oriented siblings like usaspending_search_awards, though not explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclude cases like unknown awards.

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