procurement-awards-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_awardsB | Search award titles in one fiscal-year snapshot or one publication-day delta. |
| summarize_awardsB | Compare annual award snapshots by ministry for up to three distinct fiscal years. Prices are summed only for case numbers with one source row and a usable price. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have distinct purposes: search_awards targets individual award titles in one snapshot/delta, while summarize_awards aggregates and compares multiple fiscal years by ministry. Descriptions make the boundary clear, though both operate on award data and could occasionally be confused when an agent needs both lookup and aggregation.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_awards and summarize_awards. The naming is predictable and readable.
Only two tools exist for a procurement awards domain, which feels thin. The tools are well-scoped individually, but the surface is borderline for supporting realistic award exploration and reporting workflows.
Coverage is limited to title search and ministry-level annual summaries. There are significant gaps such as retrieving award details, filtering by vendor/category/value, or listing awards across broader date ranges, which will constrain agent workflows.