Spanish Public Data MCP

by mjgmario

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

search_grant_awards

Search awarded grants from the Spanish BDNS database with filters for date range and beneficiary tax ID.

Instructions

Search awarded grants (concesiones) from BDNS. Filter by date range and beneficiary NIF.

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_grant_awards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return
`date_to`	No	End date for filtering (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`date_from`	No	Start date for filtering (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`beneficiary_nif`	No	Filter by beneficiary NIF/CIF (Spanish tax ID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or if results are complete or partial. Only basic filter capabilities are mentioned.

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 about 15 words, concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description is moderately complete but lacks mention of return structure or pagination behavior. Given the high schema coverage and simple parameters, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filtering options (date range, beneficiary NIF) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides with exact formats and defaults.

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 searches awarded grants from BDNS with filters by date range and beneficiary NIF. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_grants' which likely searches for open grant calls.

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 clear context for when to use (searching awarded grants) and mentions filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or direct to alternatives like search_grants for open calls.

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