Documento do PNCP em markdown com front-matter de procedência e hash. Grátis quando a compra foi publicada há 30+ dias; pago por requisição (x402, sem cadastro) quando é recente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id do documento (vem de `compra`) |
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?
With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the output format and a conditional access/pricing model, including that recent requests require x402 without registration. However, 'x402' is left unexplained, and there is no explicit statement about side effects or authentication beyond the payment note.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before the pricing nuance. Both sentences provide useful information, but the unexplained 'x402' and the dense pricing rule reduce overall clarity slightly.
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?
For a single-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the return format and an important access rule. It is sufficient for making a basic call, though it could be more complete by explaining 'x402' and clarifying the contents of the provenance front-matter.
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 input schema already covers the single parameter fully, explaining that `id` is the document id coming from `compra`. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score 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 identifies the resource (PNCP document) and the output format (markdown with provenance front-matter and hash). It is descriptive enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like `compra` or `recibo`. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'obtém' or 'gera', so the action is implied rather than stated.
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 provides cost-related conditions (free after 30+ days, paid per request if recent) but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. No explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of sibling alternatives is provided.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.