webdata-tools-mcp

List the public contracts a company won

get_supplier_contracts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve public contracts won by specified suppliers across US, EU/EEA and UK portals, with award summaries and details for competitor tracking, sales prospecting and supplier due diligence.

Instructions

Public contracts each company won: US federal (USAspending), every EU/EEA country (TED award notices) and the UK (Contracts Finder). First a summary per company (awards, total value per currency, top buyers, first and last award, legal names the portals used), then every award with buyer, value, date, codes and link. For competitor tracking, sales prospecting and supplier due diligence. Runs the Apify Actor tacps126/tenders-radar on your Apify account (about $0.004 per award (summaries free); spend per call is capped at $0.5).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`countries`	No	Limit to "US", "GB", "EU" or EU/EEA ISO codes (default: all three portals).
`max_items`	No	Maximum results to return (default 50, max 1000). Cost scales with this.
`suppliers`	Yes	Company names, e.g. ["Accenture", "Palantir"].
`extra_input`	No	Advanced: extra Actor input fields, merged over the defaults.
`awarded_within_days`	No	Awards from the last N days.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Name of the tool that produced the result.
`count`	Yes	Number of records the Actor returned.
`items`	Yes	The records. Long text fields are shortened to 600 characters.
`shown`	Yes	Number of records included in `items` (can be lower than count when the result is long).
`truncated`	Yes	True when records were left out to keep the result short; ask for fewer items.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.14.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important operational context beyond annotations: it runs an Apify Actor on the caller’s account, costs about $0.004 per award with free summaries, and caps spend at $0.5 per call.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and data sources, then covers output shape, use cases, and cost/account details. Every sentence adds useful information for calling or interpreting the tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented input schema, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: source coverage, result structure, cost model, and account dependency. Nothing material appears missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already carries parameter-level meaning. The description adds general cost context tied to award volume and the per-call cap, but it does not explain suppliers, countries, or awarded_within_days beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource and scope: public contracts won by named companies across US federal, EU/EEA, and UK sources. It clearly explains the returned structure (company summary followed by individual awards). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_tenders tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It names concrete use cases: competitor tracking, sales prospecting, and supplier due diligence. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternative such as search_tenders, so an agent must infer boundaries.

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