Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Portuguese company public procurement (Portal BASE)

get_portuguese_company_public_procurement
Read-only

Public-procurement record of a Portuguese company from IMPIC's Portal BASE (weekly open-data files on dados.gov.pt, public domain; every public contract since 2012): contracts WON by NIPC — buyer, subject, procedure and contract type (closed lists), CPV, lots, contract/base/final prices in EUR, dates, duration, framework agreement, closure, bidder count, contract modifications —, contracts ISSUED as a buyer, notices in the Diário da República; newest first, capped at 100. Winners and bidders published without a NIF are never named, only counted. 400 without charge for a natural-person NIF or an invalid check digit; 404 without charge when nothing is found (absence is not conclusive). Price $0.02.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nipcYesPortuguese NIPC (tax identifier of a legal person): nine digits with a valid check digit, PT prefix and separators tolerated, e.g. 504904493
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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description reveals concrete behaviors: the cap of 100 results, newest-first ordering, anonymization of winners/bidders without a NIF, and the 400/404 error states with the caveat that absence is not conclusive. It also discloses the data source and public-domain nature. No contradiction with 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 but each element adds information: source, scope, fields, cap, anonymization, errors, price. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps the field list compact in parentheses. The single run-on sentence packs many clauses, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many procurement fields, several error modes) and that an output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data is returned, in what order, with what limits, and how failures are signaled. It even includes the price, which is relevant for the agent's decision to call. Nothing critical 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 the schema already documents nipc's check-digit pattern, api_key's purpose, and x_payment's role. The description's mention of NIPC and error states is contextual rather than parameter-level. Hence the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies a concrete resource – the public-procurement record of a Portuguese company from IMPIC's Portal BASE – and enumerates exactly what is returned: contracts won, contracts issued as buyer, and Diário da República notices. It distinguishes this from sibling country procurement tools by naming Portugal and the source. The cap and field list (CPV, prices, dates, etc.) leave no ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly frames the tool as serving Portuguese NIPCs and states the data scope (since 2012, capped at 100, newest first). It also gives boundary conditions ('400… for a natural-person NIF or an invalid check digit; 404… absence is not conclusive'). However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling procurement tools, so the 'when vs alternatives' guidance is implied rather than stated.

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