Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Latvian company public procurement (IUB)

get_latvian_company_public_procurement
Read-only

Public-procurement record of a Latvian company from the IUB (Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs) daily open-data notices (CC0, e-forms since 2023-10-25): contracts WON (attributions: buyer, subject, CPV, contract reference, value in EUR, conclusion / decision / start / end dates, contract status, winner size) and notices ISSUED as a buyer (avis_emis), newest first, 100 each at most with tronque_*, totals (nombre_attributions, valeur_totale_eur, nombre_avis_emis) and stock (first and last day collected). Natural-person winners are never served. About 3% of Latvian winners are published without an identifier and the stock starts on 2023-10-25: aucune_attribution: true is a NON-conclusive absence. Facts only, no score. Paid via x402 ($0.02 in USDC or EURC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regnrYes11-digit Latvian registration number (Uzņēmumu reģistrs), e.g. 40003032065
api_keyNoOptional Sirenic API key (srn_live_…) to pay with prepaid credits instead of x402 — no wallet needed. Get one at https://api.sirenic.eu/compte. Ignored when x_payment is provided (the signed payment wins). On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error, not an x402 quote.
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe signable x402 payment requirements when payment_required is true: {x402Version, accepts[]} where each entry carries scheme, network, amount, asset and payTo (USDC and EURC options at the same numeric amount). Sign one entry and call again with `x_payment`.
resultatNoThe endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature, and every paid JSON response carries a `provenance` array (all tools since 2026-09-06) — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means), plus the common per-block envelope: `etat` in a closed list (servi, absence_mesuree, absence_non_conclusive, partiel, perime, indisponible, sans_objet), `motif` when unavailable, `age_jours` (only for publication or ingestion dates), `couverture` (complete / partielle / non_mesurable with its measure) and `confiance` in bands (faible / moyenne / forte, only where a measure grounds it, never averaged across blocks). Read the states before the numbers: an absence_non_conclusive, indisponible or partiel block is never « nothing to report » — only absence_mesuree asserts an absence. Register codes: GET /v1/provenance/registres ; states, closed lists and reading rules: GET /v1/lecture (both free). The PDF tools carry no JSON envelope (the PDF report prints it).
payment_requiredYesTrue when this response is an x402 payment quote instead of data: settle one of the quote's `accepts` options and call the tool again with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It discloses specific behaviors: newest-first ordering, pagination limit of 100, tronque_* fields, totals, stock range, natural-person winners never served, and the critical caveat that aucune_attribution: true is non-conclusive. It also reveals the pricing mechanism. This is exceptional transparency with no contradiction to annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and packed with necessary caveats, but it is not verbose or redundant. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers in important behavioral and data-quality details. It is longer than typical descriptions, but each clause adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with this complexity—multiple data categories, pagination, caveats, and payment requirements—the description is remarkably complete. It covers data source, fields, ordering, limits, missing data implications, and cost. The output schema covers return structure, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific context beyond the schema; it mentions the x402 payment and the $0.02 cost, which gives context to x_payment, but it does not elaborate on regnr or api_key beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline.

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 it returns the public-procurement record of a Latvian company from the IUB, specifying it covers contracts won and notices issued. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific Latvian source (IUB) and the country, making it unambiguous which tool to select among many get_* tools.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when a Latvian company's procurement record is needed. It provides context like the data source start date (2023-10-25) and limitations (3% missing identifiers), which helps decide if the tool is suitable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

All Sirenic 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