Search Canadian federal government contracts. Filter by keywords, province, or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 10) | |
| keywords | No | Search keywords (e.g., 'steel', 'construction', 'IT services') | |
| province | No | Filter by province (e.g., 'Alberta', 'Ontario', 'Quebec') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It omits behavioral aspects like read-only nature, data source, pagination, or error handling. The false mention of 'status' filter undermines trust.
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?
Only one sentence, but it contains an inaccuracy (status filter not in schema). Short but not effectively concise due to misinformation.
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?
No output schema, so description should explain return values or behavior. It does not mention what data is returned, pagination limits, or filtering logic, making it incomplete for reliable 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by listing filterable fields but incorrectly includes 'status', which misleads the agent. This outweighs the positive value.
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 it searches Canadian federal government contracts, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it mentions filtering by 'status' which is not in the input schema, causing confusion.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_opportunities, find_opportunities). Agent has no basis to differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple search/find tools (find_opportunities, find_matching_opportunities, search_opportunities, etc.) and detail retrieval tools (get_opportunity_details, get_alberta_opportunity_details, get_contract_details). This creates ambiguity for an agent to select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun convention in snake_case (e.g., search_contracts, watch_opportunity). Some deviations like bid_no_bid_scorecard use a multi-word verb, but overall the pattern is consistent.
25 tools is on the higher side for this domain. While the number could be justified by the need to handle both federal and provincial opportunities, many tools are redundant, making the surface feel heavy.
Core workflows (search, get details, watch/unwatch, set/profile, analyze) are covered. Minor gaps exist, like no batch operations or tool to clear watchlist, but the surface is largely complete for contract tracking.
