Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Polish company public procurement (BZP)

get_polish_company_public_procurement
Read-only

Public-procurement record of a Polish company from the Biuletyn Zamówień Publicznych (e-Zamówienia public API, UZP, CC0; national below-EU-threshold notices since 2021, daily updates): contracts WON matched by legal-person NIP (attributions, one per awarded part: buyer with NIP, subject, CPV, closed-list outcome, tenders received, awarded price and contract value in PLN as published, contract date, declared enterprise size) and notices ISSUED as a buyer (avis_emis); newest first, capped at 100 with tronque_*. Winners are served only when PROVEN legal persons (legal form in the name or KRS from the VAT white list): sole traders — 37 % of winners — are never served (400 without charge), a NIP not yet classified answers 404 without charge (stock.gagnants_a_classer). Partial coverage: zero never means “never won a contract”.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nipYesPolish NIP (tax identifier): ten digits, separators and PL prefix tolerated, e.g. 7812034808
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?

Annotations already mark read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: two record categories, newest-first ordering capped at 100, 400 for sole-trader winners, 404 for unclassified NIPs, 'without charge' for both, and the 'zero never means never won a contract' caveat. This goes well beyond the annotations and makes runtime behavior predictable.

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 but mostly earns its length: each clause conveys coverage, limitations, or edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before caveats. It loses a point for minor provenance/licensing details and internal field names that are not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnly/openWorld annotations already supplied, the description covers everything else essential: data source, temporal coverage, update frequency, result structure, result cap, error semantics, and the open-world caveat. No critical invocation information is missing.

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 nip, api_key, and x_payment are already well documented structurally. The description adds the meaningful detail that winners are matched by legal-person NIP, but does not need to and does not restate the schema-level parameter formats.

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 states a precise verb and resource: retrieving a Polish company's BZP public-procurement record, split into won contracts (attributions) and issued notices (avis_emis). The source and scope (Biuletyn Zamówień Publicznych, national below-EU-threshold notices) clearly distinguish it from sibling procurement tools for other countries.

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?

It gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate: Polish company NIP, national BZP data since 2021, daily updates, and explicit limitations for sole traders and unclassified NIPs. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_latvian_company_public_procurement or get_eu_procurement_awards to state when not to use them.

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