Skip to main content
Glama

editalmd

by com.editalmd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create an alert

create_alert

An alert for new procurements by object terms and state (UF). Use the account session or guest token. Channels: pull, signed webhook or email. Name, organization and email recipients are optional. Two modes. By termos: a space requires all groups; | accepts alternatives within a group. By cnpj: known activity families produce alerts, up to max_familias. Unmapped activities remain in the response without an alert. The cron checks every 30 minutes. Email requires an account session and EMAIL_ALERTAS=1. It uses explicit recipients or the verified account email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoState (UF) abbreviation (optional).
nomeNoAlert name, up to 100 characters.
canalNopull, webhook or email (default pull).pull
termosYesObject words, 3 to 200 letters; a space means all, | means any (uniforme|fardamento).
destinoNoHTTPS webhook URL. Ignored for pull and email.
filtrosNoExtra filter: modalities, municipalities, exclusions, values, open proposals and CNAEs. PATCH replaces the whole filter; {} clears it.
destinatariosNoEmail recipients: `para`, `cc` and `bcc` arrays. Up to 10 distinct addresses in total. An empty `para` list uses the account email. PATCH replaces all three lists. BCC is hidden from other recipients.
organizacao_idNoOrganization from `GET /api/me/empresas`. Membership and MFA are checked. Null removes the label. This does not share alert ownership.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / destinatarios
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Email recipients: `para`, `cc` and `bcc` arrays. Up to 10 distinct addresses in total. An empty `para` list uses the account email. PATCH replaces all three lists. BCC is hidden from other recipients.",
+  "properties": {
+    "bcc": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "cc": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "para": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "email",
+        "maxLength": 254,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 10,
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / destino / description
      Previous value: -"https URL (webhook); ignored for pull and email (email goes to the account e-mail)."New value: +"HTTPS webhook URL. Ignored for pull and email."
    • addedInput schema / properties / nome
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alert name, up to 100 characters.",
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / organizacao_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Organization from `GET /api/me/empresas`. Membership and MFA are checked. Null removes the label. This does not share alert ownership.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the cron runs every 30 minutes, delivery is pull/webhook/email, email needs an account session and EMAIL_ALERTAS=1, and recipients fall back to the verified account email. This is meaningful operational detail the annotations do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose but is dense with untranslated jargon (UF, cnpj, max_familias, termos) and references a mode ('by cnpj', max_familias) that the schema does not expose, which reads as noise or confusion rather than earning its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter write tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers authentication, channels, timing, mode semantics and recipient behavior adequately. The lingering gaps are routing versus siblings and the unexplained cnpj/max_familias reference.

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 documents uf, nome, canal, termos, destino, filtros and destinatarios. The description largely restates this ('a space requires all groups; | accepts alternatives'), and its mention of `max_familias`/cnpj mode corresponds to no visible schema parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creates an alert for new procurements, scoped by object terms and state (UF). It even enumerates delivery channels and two operational modes. However, describing a 'by cnpj' mode overlaps with the sibling create_alerts_by_cnpj without distinguishing when to use which, so it does not cleanly separate itself from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives context on authentication ('use the account session or guest token') and the extra requirement for email ('EMAIL_ALERTAS=1'), which is useful. But it never states when to prefer this tool over create_alerts_by_cnpj, preview_alert, or update_alert, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

All editalmd toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources