Skip to main content
Glama
lzinga

US Government Open Data MCP

nih_search_projects

Read-only

Search NIH-funded projects by keyword, disease, investigator, institution, state, agency, grant type, or funding. Retrieve project number, title, PI, organization, award amount, and dates.

Instructions

Search NIH-funded research projects by text, disease area, investigator, institution, state, agency, spending category, grant type, and funding amount. Returns project number, title, PI, organization, award amount, agency, activity code, and dates. Use to find research grants for any disease, track institutional funding, or identify PIs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoFree-text search in titles, abstracts, and terms: 'breast cancer', 'CRISPR', 'opioid'
fiscal_yearsNoFiscal years: [2024] or [2020,2021,2022,2023,2024]
agenciesNoNIH institute codes: 'NCI' (National Cancer Institute), 'NHLBI' (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), 'NIDDK' (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases), 'NINDS' (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), 'NIA' (National Institute on Aging), 'NIAID' (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), 'NIGMS' (National Institute of General Medical Sciences), 'NIMH' (National Institute of Mental Health), ... (32 total)
pi_nameNoPrincipal investigator name (partial match): 'Fauci', 'Collins'
org_namesNoOrganization names (wildcard): ['JOHNS HOPKINS'], ['STANFORD']
org_statesNoState abbreviations: ['CA','NY'], ['TX']
spending_categoriesNoRCDC category IDs: [27]=Cancer, [7]=Alzheimer's, [41]=Diabetes, [93]=Opioids, [60]=HIV/AIDS
activity_codesNoGrant types: 'R01' (Research Project Grant (most common independent investigator grant)), 'R21' (Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (smaller, high-risk)), 'R43' (SBIR Phase I (Small Business Innovation Research)), 'R44' (SBIR Phase II), 'P01' (Research Program Project Grant (multi-investigator)), 'P30' (Center Core Grant), 'P50' (Specialized Center), 'U01' (Research Project Cooperative Agreement), ... (20 total)
funding_mechanismNoMechanism codes: 'RG' (Research Grants), 'PC' (Research Centers), 'CT' (Clinical Trial or Study Cooperative Agreement), 'TN' (Research Training (Individual and Institutional)), 'CR' (Research Career Programs), 'SB' (Small Business Awards (SBIR/STTR)), 'OT' (Other Transactions)
award_amount_minNoMinimum award amount in dollars
award_amount_maxNoMaximum award amount in dollars
covid_responseNoCOVID funding: ['All'], ['C3'] (CARES Act), ['C6'] (American Rescue Plan)
exclude_subprojectsNoExclude subprojects for cleaner counts (default: true)
limitNoResults per page (default 10, max 50)
offsetNoStarting offset for pagination
sort_fieldNoSort by: 'award_amount', 'project_start_date', 'fiscal_year'
sort_orderNoSort order
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about returned fields (project number, title, PI, etc.) and typical uses, which is valuable beyond annotations. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core action and filters, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no required), the description covers main filter types, return fields, and use cases. It omits pagination details but those are in the schema. Largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 17 parameters. The tool description only summarizes filter types without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches NIH-funded research projects with multiple filter criteria and specifies return fields. It is a specific verb+resource but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like nih_projects_by_agency or nih_search_publications.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('find research grants for any disease, track institutional funding, or identify PIs') but does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lzinga/us-gov-open-data-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server