bandiradar-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.11.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ingestion, retrieval of matches and profiles, listing sources, scoring a single opportunity, and ranking opportunities. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., fetch_opportunities, get_matches, list_sources). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a funding opportunities server. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers ingestion, scoring, searching, and retrieving profiles and matches, but lacks basic listing of all opportunities, update/delete for opportunities or profiles, and individual opportunity detail retrieval.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 102 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 17, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or error handling (e.g., what happens if profile_path is invalid). It only states the return type, lacking behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the key action but omits necessary details, making it minimally adequate.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description lacks information about the parameter's role and the tool's purpose. For a tool with one required parameter and no other documentation, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, profile_path, has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its meaning or expected format (e.g., file path, URL, or identifier). This leaves the agent without sufficient semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns a parsed profile as a dict, which indicates the action and result type. However, it fails to specify what kind of profile (e.g., user, device, or data profile) and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_matches or fetch_opportunities.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios. The description provides no usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'scores' and returns a Match dict, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether scoring modifies data), idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical information. True conciseness would include essential details without redundancy; here it is under-specified.
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?
Given 4 parameters (1 required) and no explanation of their meaning, the description is incomplete. The existence of an output schema helps but is not referenced. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 4 parameters. It hints at 'profile' but does not clarify the roles of opportunity_id, profile_path, profile, or db, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
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 verb 'score' and resource 'one stored opportunity for a profile', and mentions the return type 'single Match dict'. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_opportunities (fetching) and get_matches (getting matches), but does not explicitly differentiate or explain the unique value of this tool.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_opportunities or get_profile, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description adds useful context: it saves progressively, returns a structured result, and indicates the 'sample' default enables offline use without secrets. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is safe to repeat.
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?
The description is concise at three sentences, with the core action (ingest a source) front-loaded. The detailed return structure is listed efficiently, but the mismatched purpose with the name slightly reduces clarity.
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?
The return structure is thoroughly covered, and output schema exists. However, the description does not explain how this tool integrates with siblings (e.g., fetching opportunities vs listing sources), leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding which tool to use.
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?
The description only adds meaning for the 'sample' parameter, explaining its default aids offline usage. For 'source' and 'db', no additional semantics are provided. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is insufficient for all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Ingest a source into the store,' which conflicts with the tool name 'fetch_opportunities'. The name suggests retrieving opportunities, but the description describes ingesting a source. This creates confusion about the tool's actual function.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_opportunities' or 'list_sources'. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly notes 'no recompute', indicating read-only and idempotent behavior. However, it does not mention potential staleness of data, required permissions, or whether the operation has side effects. Additional context like 'this profile_version' hints at the input dependency but is vague.
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 a single sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with key information: action (return), scope (PERSISTED), entity (matches for this profile_version), and constraint (no recompute). Every word earns its place.
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?
Given 5 optional parameters and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use parameters like 'min_score', 'limit', or 'db'. Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description should specify what 'matches' means or how results are structured. The tool is more complex than the description suggests.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the 5 parameters. It does not explain any parameter, not even the key 'profile' or 'profile_path' which likely specify the profile_version. The phrase 'this profile_version' is ambiguous without connecting it to the schema.
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 explicitly states it returns 'PERSISTED matches for this profile_version (no recompute)', clearly identifying the verb (return), resource (persisted matches), and scope (for a profile_version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'score_opportunity' which would recompute scores.
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 implies use when cached/precomputed matches are desired and not fresh computation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'search_opportunities' or 'score_opportunity'. The context signal of siblings provides some help, but the description itself lacks exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output format but omits potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, auth requirements). Minimal context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource, conveying all necessary information without extraneous text.
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 zero parameters and a simple output list, the description is fairly complete. The output schema further clarifies the return format. Minor omissions like explanation of 'kind' or authentication requirements would be nice but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist in the schema, so the description correctly avoids parameter discussion. Baseline of 4 applies as per rubric for zero parameters.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'registered funding sources', and specifies the output format as a list of objects with id and kind fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch_opportunities' which deal with different entities.
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 description implies usage for listing funding sources but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses offline sample mode, return format (canonical views, no raw payloads), mode options and the LLM key requirement for precision, and effects of min_score, with_benchmarks, and with_documents. This provides solid behavioral context.
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?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. 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 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers input alternatives, mode behavior, key flags, and output format. It misses a few basic parameters (source, sample, limit, db) but these are self-explanatory from the schema, so overall 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains profile_path vs profile, mode, min_score, with_benchmarks, and with_documents, but omits source, sample, limit, and db. This partial coverage earns a 3.
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 tool ranks opportunities for a profile in sample mode, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_opportunities (which likely fetches existing opportunities) and get_matches.
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?
It explains the mutually exclusive inputs (profile_path vs profile dict) and mode details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch_opportunities or get_matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bandiradar MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mayai-it/bandiradar/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mayai-it/bandiradar)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bandiradar MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mayai-it/bandiradar/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mayai-it/bandiradar)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/mayai-it/bandiradar'

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