procurement-awards-mcp

search_awards

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Japanese procurement contract award titles by fiscal year, publication date, ministry, corporate number, or keyword to find and filter matching award records.

Instructions

Search award titles in one fiscal-year snapshot or one publication-day delta.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_awards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No
`fiscal_year`	No
`published_on`	No
`ministry_code`	No
`corporate_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that it searches titles rather than full award records, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or what the delta mode actually returns differently.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It may be over-terse for a seven-parameter search tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but a seven-parameter, fully undocumented search tool needs more than one sentence. Filter interactions, the roles of ministry_code and corporate_number, and pagination via limit/offset are all left to inference.

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 0% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conveys meaning for fiscal_year and published_on, but says nothing about query, limit, offset, ministry_code, or corporate_number, nor about the defaults and bounds the schema sets.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (award titles), and adds a scoping distinction between a full fiscal-year snapshot and a single publication-day delta. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling summarize_awards, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two modes (fiscal_year snapshot vs published_on delta) imply how the tool is used, but the guidance is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over summarize_awards, nor any note on whether the two temporal filters are mutually exclusive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server