一个模型上下文协议（MCP）服务器，允许任何 AI 助手搜索青年机会——包括奖学金、研究金、实习、会议和交流项目——这些机会均聚合自领先的机会发现网站。
状态： alpha (
v0.1.x)。随着适配器的成熟，架构、工具界面和来源列表可能会发生变化。在生产环境中请锁定小版本号。
依赖第三方奖学金聚合网站的学生通常需要打开十几个标签页，筛选数十条无关信息，并将截止日期复制到个人电子表格中——结果却因为没有聚合器提供可靠的截止日期跟踪而错过了申请窗口。Opportunity MCP 将这一工作流程简化为单一的对话式查询。
你： 查找欧洲全额资助的硕士奖学金，截止日期在未来 60 天内，且巴基斯坦公民有资格申请。
Claude： （返回一个去重后的结构化列表，实时从索引来源获取，按截止日期排序，每条记录都链接回原始文章。）
该服务器通过 stdio 在本地运行，提供一个 SQLite + FTS5 索引，该索引通过 CI 每六小时刷新一次，并通过 PyPI、官方 MCP 注册表和 Smithery 分发。
Related MCP server: bounty-mcp
渠道 | 标识符 | 状态 |
PyPI |
| ✅ 已上线 |
MCP Registry |
| ✅ 已发布 |
Smithery |
| ✅ 已发布 |
GitHub | 真理来源 | |
GitHub Releases | SQLite 数据库的 | 由 CI 自动发布 |
pip install opportunity-mcp
opportunity-mcp-refresh # build the local index (one-off, ~30 seconds)将以下内容添加到 claude_desktop_config.json：
{
"mcpServers": {
"opportunities": {
"command": "opportunity-mcp"
}
}
}重启 Claude Desktop。模型将可以使用以下六种工具。
大多数客户端使用相同的 mcpServers 格式。将 command 指向 opportunity-mcp（在 pip install 之后）或使用 uvx 实现零安装：
{
"mcpServers": {
"opportunities": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["opportunity-mcp"]
}
}
}https://smithery.ai/server/sayedhusnainhader/opportunity-mcp — Smithery 会为你处理安装命令。
git clone https://github.com/revolutionarybukhari/opportunity-mcp
cd opportunity-mcp
uv sync # or: pip install -e ".[dev]"
uv run opportunity-mcp-refresh
uv run opportunity-mcp # speaks MCP over stdio该服务器公开了六种工具。每种工具都接受 JSON 参数并返回 Pydantic 类型的结果。
工具 | 签名 | 描述 |
|
| 在所有已索引的机会中进行全文搜索，并支持可选过滤器。 |
|
| 通过 ID 获取单个机会的详细信息。 |
|
| 所有来源的最新机会，按发布日期排序。 |
|
| 在 |
|
| 列出已索引的来源、项目数量和最后刷新时间戳。 |
|
| 按需重新获取来源。可选的 |
type 可以是 scholarship（奖学金）、fellowship（研究金）、internship（实习）、conference（会议）、exchange（交流）、competition（竞赛）、grant（资助）、award（奖项）或 other（其他）。
已针对每个站点的 RSS 源进行实时验证。
来源 | 机制 | 状态 |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 已上线 | |
RSS | ✅ 适配器已上线（上游源目前为空） | |
HTML | 计划中 | |
HTML | 计划中 |
各来源的 robots.txt 合规性、服务条款说明和 CI 特性记录在 docs/SOURCES.md 中。
Find fully-funded master's scholarships in Europe with deadlines in the next 60 days.
What conferences are happening in Africa in the next three months?
List the ten newest internships indexed today.
Show me everything closing in the next seven days that an undergraduate could apply to.
Get full details for opportunity 7733b95a81e3239d.AI client ──MCP──▶ FastMCP server ──▶ SQLite + FTS5 ◀── refresh job ──▶ source adapters ──▶ opportunity sites两个清晰的关注点分离：
适配器：知道如何读取一个站点并生成原始的 Opportunity 对象（经过 Pydantic 验证）。
查询引擎：对站点一无所知——它只搜索规范化的索引。
添加新来源通常只需一个 50 行代码的拉取请求（PR）。请参阅 docs/ADAPTER_GUIDE.md。完整的架构原理在 docs/ARCHITECTURE.md 中。
无用户跟踪。 所有查询均在本地处理；除了定期的源站点刷新外，没有任何数据离开用户的机器。
所有索引数据均为公开数据。 摘要限制在 500 个字符以内，每条记录都链接回原始文章。
礼貌标识。 HTTP User-Agent 包含项目 URL，以便网站所有者可以直接联系我们。
保守的刷新节奏。 来源通过 CI 每六小时最多轮询一次，绝不在用户查询时轮询。
应要求移除来源。 我们会在 24 小时内响应移除请求，无需协商。
尊重 robots.txt。 每个适配器在抓取前都会遵守 robots.txt。
第二阶段 — 国家、级别和语言感知提取（目前委托给 AI 客户端）。
第三阶段 — 第一个 HTML 适配器（Youth Opportunities），更广泛的 Tier-2/Tier-4 来源覆盖。
第四阶段 — 为偏好远程 MCP 服务器的客户端提供托管的 Streamable-HTTP 端点。
第五阶段 — 可选的按保存配置生成的每周摘要。
带有 add a source 标签的开放问题是很好的首次贡献机会。
欢迎提交拉取请求。最快的帮助方式是添加我们尚未索引的来源——阅读 docs/ADAPTER_GUIDE.md 并提交 PR。有关开发设置、测试规范和行为准则期望，请参阅 docs/CONTRIBUTING.md。
git clone https://github.com/revolutionarybukhari/opportunity-mcp
cd opportunity-mcp
uv sync
uv run pytest
uv run ruff check .MIT © Opportunity MCP 贡献者。
Get full details for a single opportunity by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get full details'), but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or response complexity. Adequate for a simple retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and method. Missing guidance on behavior like error handling or caching, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds 'by ID' to clarify the single parameter, but does not provide further semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'full details for a single opportunity', and the method 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_latest' and 'search_opportunities'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing details of a specific opportunity, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the newest opportunities across all sources, most recent first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ordering (most recent first) and scope (all sources), but does not address authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or whether the returned list is exhaustive (beyond a default limit of 20). The absence of such context limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it omits key information about parameters and does not structure additional details (e.g., bullet points). While not overly verbose, it lacks completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct tool selection and invocation. It fails to describe the filtering capability (type) and result limit, and offers no guidance on alternative tools for different queries. This makes it incomplete for agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'type' or 'limit' parameters. An agent cannot infer that 'type' filters by opportunity category or that 'limit' controls result count. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the newest opportunities across all sources, sorted most recent first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_upcoming_deadlines (deadline-focused) and search_opportunities (search-based). However, it does not explicitly note that it returns a limited set or that it can be filtered by type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives such as search_opportunities for keyword search or list_upcoming_deadlines for deadline-oriented queries. Agents are left to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List indexed sources, the count each contributed, and last-refresh time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It fails to mention whether it is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without extraneous information. Every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema is shown (though marked present), the description adequately explains the returned data. It covers the main elements but omits potential details like sorting or pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds meaningful context by specifying what the output includes (count and refresh time). This compensates well for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (indexed sources), and the specific details included (count each contributed, last-refresh time). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_opportunities and refresh_index.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied as a simple listing, but no guidance on when not to use or when to prefer siblings like refresh_index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List opportunities with deadlines in the next N days, soonest first.
Args: within_days: Look ahead this many days from today. Default 30. type: Optional filter by opportunity type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| within_days | No | ||
| type | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains filtering by deadline window and sorting, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., negative within_days, inclusiveness of today). With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. Every word is necessary, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and parameters. It could add a note on the filtering logic (e.g., inclusive of today) but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining within_days as a look-ahead and type as an optional filter. However, the explanations are minimal and could mention the possible enum values for type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists opportunities with deadlines in the next N days, sorted soonest first. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like search_opportunities and list_latest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for upcoming deadlines, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Refresh the local index by re-fetching sources.
Args: source: If provided, only refresh this source by name. Otherwise refresh all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. 'Refresh' implies an operation that modifies local state, but the description does not disclose if it's destructive, requires permissions, or affects other users. Insufficient detail for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two brief sentences plus an Arguments section, front-loading the main action. Every sentence provides essential information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers functionality and parameter semantics. However, it omits expected return value or confirmation message, which is a gap for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies that the 'source' parameter specifies which source to refresh (by name) and defaults to refreshing all. This adds meaning beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool refreshes the local index by re-fetching sources. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on refresh rather than listing or searching, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives guidance on using the 'source' parameter to refresh a specific source vs. all. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like list_sources or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full-text search across all indexed opportunities.
Args: query: Natural-language search query (e.g. "fully funded master's scholarship Germany"). type: Optional filter by opportunity type (scholarship, fellowship, internship, conference, …). funded_only: If True, only return fully-funded opportunities. deadline_before: Only return opportunities with deadlines on or before this date (ISO YYYY-MM-DD). limit: Maximum number of results. Default 20.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| funded_only | No | ||
| deadline_before | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the search functionality and parameters effectively but does not mention pagination, ordering, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so return value behavior is implied rather than stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by a numbered list of parameters. It is relatively concise but includes a slightly verbose example for 'query.' Each sentence adds value, though the example could be considered extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (5 parameters, search with filters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It does not explain edge cases or output structure, but the output schema mitigates this. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear and meaningful explanations for all five parameters, including examples for 'query' and acceptable values for 'type' (e.g., 'scholarship, fellowship'), default values, and format for 'deadline_before' (ISO YYYY-MM-DD). This adds substantial context beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Full-text search across all indexed opportunities,' which clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (opportunities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_opportunity (single item retrieval) and list_latest (recent listings) by focusing on text-based search with filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context by giving example queries and explaining each parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of exclusions or prerequisites is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1get_opportunitylist_latestlist_sourceslist_upcoming_deadlinesrefresh_indexsearch_opportunitiesScored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting a single opportunity, listing latest, browsing sources, upcoming deadlines, refreshing data, and full-text search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, refresh_, search_) using snake_case, making them predictable.
With 6 tools covering core operations (retrieve, list, search, manage index) for an opportunity discovery server, the count is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear need.
The set covers key operations (retrieve, list, search, refresh) but lacks filtering options on list_latest (e.g., by type or funded status), which is a minor gap. Overall, it's adequate for the domain.
Deterministic eligibility checker for grants, jobs and scholarships in Africa.
Search US grants + federal contracts (Grants.gov + SAM.gov) from any LLM.
Public fellowship and grant search with sourced details and live filter vocabularies.
Live EU funding data in your AI: grant calls, programmes, consortium partners, VCs, incubators.
