Enables x402 USDC micropayments on Solana mainnet for autonomous agent payments.
Real-time US government contract data for AI agents. Search and details are completely free — no API key, no payment, no signup.
Live endpoint: https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app
{
"mcpServers": {
"aegisgov-contracts": {
"url": "https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app/mcp",
"type": "streamable-http"
}
}
}That's it. Your agent can now search 33,000+ live US federal contract opportunities.
Related MCP server: USASpending MCP Server
Tool | Price | Description |
| 🆓 FREE | Search active SAM.gov contracts by keyword, NAICS, agency, value range |
| 🆓 FREE | Full contract details, contacts, deadlines by notice ID |
| $0.05 USDC | AI bid/no-bid analysis with score, strengths, risks |
# Search active contracts
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app/search \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"keywords": "cybersecurity", "limit": 5}'
# Full contract details
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app/details \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"noticeId": "<noticeId from search>"}'
# AI bid/no-bid analysis
curl -X POST https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app/analyze \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"noticeId": "<noticeId>"}'GET https://aegisgov-contracts-mcp.vercel.app/.well-known/mcp.jsonUses x402 protocol — HTTP 402 with USDC micropayments. No accounts. No API keys. Agents pay autonomously.
Supported networks:
Base mainnet (eip155:8453) — USDC
Solana mainnet (solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp) — USDC
Facilitator: PayAI — free tier, no key required
No SAM.gov API hassle — registration, rate limits, field normalization all handled
33,000+ live opportunities — always current
AI analysis built in — bid scoring, risk flags, competition level
Agent-native — designed for MCP, works with Claude, GPT, any LLM toolchain
Dual-network x402 — pay in USDC on Base or Solana
SAM.gov — official US government procurement data (FPDS/USASpending.gov)
AI-powered bid/no-bid analysis for a government contract opportunity. Returns score 0-100, recommendation, strengths, and risks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noticeId | Yes | SAM.gov notice ID | |
| companyProfile | No | Brief company description for fit analysis |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool is AI-powered and returns a score/recommendation, but does not disclose limitations, latency, error handling, or potential reliability issues. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.
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?
Two sentences: first explains the core function and adds 'AI-powered' context, second lists outputs. No wasted words, key information 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 no annotations or output schema, the description reasonably covers inputs (noticeId required, companyProfile optional) and outputs (score, recommendation, strengths, risks). It could mention error scenarios or output structure, but is adequate for its complexity.
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%, with both parameters described (noticeId as SAM.gov notice ID, companyProfile as brief company description). The description adds 'AI-powered' but no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 performs AI-powered bid/no-bid analysis for government contract opportunities, and lists specific outputs (score, recommendation, strengths, risks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_opportunity_details, search_opportunities) which are for retrieving details and searching, not analysis.
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 a bid recommendation is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. However, sibling tools have different purposes, so context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get full details for a specific SAM.gov contract opportunity by notice ID. FREE — no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noticeId | Yes | SAM.gov notice ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool is free and gets full details, but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, what happens with invalid IDs, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is insufficient.
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 with two short sentences. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It tells the purpose and that it's free, but lacks details on what 'full details' encompasses or any usage context.
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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'noticeId' with description 'SAM.gov notice ID'. The description adds 'by notice ID' which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific SAM.gov contract opportunity', and the input 'by notice ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_opportunities (which searches) and analyze_bid_potential (which analyzes).
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 should be used when you have a specific notice ID and want full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tool names provides some clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search active US government contract opportunities from SAM.gov. Filter by keywords, NAICS code, agency, or dollar value. FREE — no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | No | Search keywords | |
| naics | No | NAICS code filter | |
| agency | No | Agency name filter | |
| minValue | No | Minimum contract value USD | |
| maxValue | No | Maximum contract value USD | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only mentions 'FREE — no payment required.' It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, pagination, or whether it is read-only.
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?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second lists filters and cost. No fluff.
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 or annotations. Description does not describe return values or result structure. For a search tool with 6 optional parameters, more context is needed.
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% with parameter descriptions. The tool description restates the filter types but adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 searches active US government contract opportunities from SAM.gov with filters. It distinguishes from siblings 'analyze_bid_potential' and 'get_opportunity_details' by focusing on search/filtering.
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 alternatives. The description implies searching first but doesn't explicitly state to use it before analyzing or getting details.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0analyze_bid_potentialget_opportunity_detailssearch_opportunitiesEach tool has a distinct purpose: searching for opportunities, retrieving details of a specific one, and performing bid analysis. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., search_opportunities, get_opportunity_details, analyze_bid_potential).
With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused government contract assistant, covering the essential workflows without being bloated.
The set covers search, details, and analysis, which are core tasks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to track or favorite opportunities), but the surface is functional.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Government contract search and federal procurement data: SAM.gov opportunities + USASpending awards.
Federal+SLED govcon MCP: SAM, USASpending, recompete, hearings, policy intel, search. Private AI.
Federal contract intelligence: $7T+ awards, SAM.gov opps, pWin verdicts, recompetes, protests.
Search US grants + federal contracts (Grants.gov + SAM.gov) from any LLM.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AEGISGOVDAO/aegisgov-contracts-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
