Prazos da compra: fim das propostas (do PNCP) e último dia de impugnação (estimado: 3 dias úteis antes da sessão, Lei 14.133 art. 164, feriados nacionais). Grátis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id da compra (vem da busca) |
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 transparency burden. It discloses that the impugnation deadline is estimated, explains the legal basis and calculation method, mentions national holidays, and states that the tool is free. This is meaningful context beyond the input schema, though it does not specify response format or error behavior.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every part earns its place: what deadlines, how they are calculated, the legal reference, and the cost note. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will get back: the two relevant deadlines and their caveats. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the response structure, but that is less critical given the straightforward content and the schema-covered input.
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%: the only parameter id is documented as 'id da compra (vem da busca)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema already fully explains the parameter. 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 identifies the resource as 'prazos da compra' and enumerates two specific outputs: end of proposals and last day of impugnation. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the noun phrase strongly implies a retrieval operation. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like compra or buscar_licitacao by focusing on deadlines.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compra or buscar_licitacao. It relies on the schema note that the id comes from the search, but gives no guidance on trade-offs or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the nature of the data.
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.