Skip to main content
Glama

editalmd

by com.editalmd

criar_alerta

Alerta de compra nova por termos do objeto e UF (precisa do token edm_…). Canal pull (ler por alertas_compras), webhook (POST https assinado com o whsec_… do dono) ou email. O primeiro é grátis; os seguintes custam por 30 dias (x402 ou crédito).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoSigla da UF (opcional)
canalNopull, webhook ou email (padrão pull)pull
termosYesPalavras do objeto, 3 a 200 letras; espaço = todas, | = qualquer uma (uniforme|fardamento)
destinoNoURL https (webhook) ou e-mail (email)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / default
      Added value: +"pull"
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "pull",
+  "webhook",
+  "email"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the token requirement, channel behavior (pull reads via alertas_compras, webhook signs with whsec_…), and cost model. It does not describe side effects or post-creation responses, but covers essential behavioral expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, then efficiently cover token, channels, and pricing without redundancy. Every clause adds value.

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?

Adequate for a creation tool with no output schema: it covers prerequisites (token), delivery methods, and costs. It doesn't explain the creation result (e.g., confirmation ID), but given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 explains each parameter, including 'termos' syntax (space = all, | = any). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new purchase alert based on object terms and UF, differentiating it from siblings like 'alerta_por_cnpj' which is CNPJ-based. The verb 'criar' and resource 'alerta' are explicit.

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?

Provides concrete context: requires an 'edm_…' token, lists three channels (pull, webhook, email) with specific mechanics, and mentions pricing (first free, others cost). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose implies when to use this versus CNPJ-based alerts.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and descriptions clearly separate alerta_por_cnpj from criar_alerta and vigiar_compra from vigia_eventos. Only recibo is somewhat generic without reading its description, and the two alert-creation tools share a conceptual overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb+noun (criar_alerta, buscar_licitacao), some noun+verb (credito_recarregar), many are noun+noun (credito_saldo, alertas_compras, vigia_eventos), and health/api_index are English amid Portuguese names. The set feels less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server covers several subdomains: search, documents, alerts, watches, billing, and account management. It is a bit heavy and includes optional meta endpoints like api_index and health, but the count is justifiable for the scope.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers search, purchase details, document extraction, alert creation and matches, watch creation/events, credits, and webhook management. However, there is no way to list, update, or cancel existing alerts or watches, which is a notable lifecycle gap.

Resources