Lista de habilitação do edital (jurídica, fiscal/social/trabalhista, econômico-financeira, técnica), cada item com o trecho literal do texto. Pago por documento (x402 ou crédito); mesmo texto não paga de novo.
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by disclosing that the tool is paid per document, accepts payment via x402 or credit, and does not charge again for the same text. It also describes what each returned item contains, giving useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core output, and the second adds critical billing behavior. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, the categories included, the literal excerpts, and the billing model. It could mention error/credit-shortage behavior, but this is a minor gap for a simple listing tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter `id` is already described as 'id do documento (vem de `compra`)'. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific detail, so 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the habilitação sections of an edital, enumerating the categories (jurídica, fiscal/social/trabalhista, econômico-financeira, técnica) and stating that each item includes the literal text excerpt. This is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like edital_markdown or compra.
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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement — an agent would use this to retrieve qualification items for a given edital document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
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.