Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.gapup.mcp

gov_procurement_multi

Read-only

Aggregate public procurement tenders (calls for tender / appels d'offres) from multiple government sources simultaneously: TED Europa v3 (27 EU countries, keyless API), BOAMP France (opendatasoft, keyless), UK Contracts Finder (OCDS standard, keyless), SAM.gov United States (requires SAM_GOV_API_KEY env var), and bund.de Germany (HTML scraping, partial). Returns structured tender records with buyer authority, EU CPV sector code, estimated contract value converted to EUR via live FX rates, submission deadlines, and direct notice URLs. Use when: a B2G agent needs to find government contract opportunities matching keywords across multiple jurisdictions; building a pipeline of public tenders for bid/no-bid qualification; monitoring a domain by CPV code; market sizing public sector spend. Key inputs: query (keywords), countries (ISO-2 array), cpv_codes (EU standard codes, e.g. 72000000=IT services, 45000000=construction, 79000000=business services), min_value_eur (filter), published_after (ISO date, defaults to 30 days ago). SLA: <=25s p95 (all sources fetched in parallel, 8s budget per source). Optional env var SAM_GOV_API_KEY enables US federal tenders (free key at api.sam.gov). Quality score: 25 pts if TED EU retrieved, 15 pts per other source retrieved (max 60), 10 pts if >= 10 tenders returned, 5 pts if aggregates computed. Status: failed < 30 / partial 30-59 / final >= 60.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
queryYesKeywords to search for tenders (e.g. "cybersecurity audit", "construction", "consulting AI")
countriesNoCountries to search. Defaults to ["EU","US","FR","UK","DE"]. Use "EU" for all 27 EU member states via TED Europa.
cpv_codesNoEU Common Procurement Vocabulary codes (e.g. ['72000000'] for IT services, ['45000000'] for construction). Optional.
min_value_eurNoMinimum contract value in EUR. Tenders below this are excluded. Optional.
published_afterNoISO date YYYY-MM-DD. Only return tenders published after this date. Defaults to 30 days ago.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
statusYes
sourcesYes
tendersYes
by_sourceYes
by_countryYes
quality_scoreYes
countries_searchedYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, not destructive), description adds behavioral details: parallel fetch, SLA 25s, quality scoring, optional env var, and status levels. No contradictions.

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?

Description is comprehensive but logically structured with lists and key sections. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Good front-loading of purpose.

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 6 parameters, multiple sources, and complex behavior (parallel fetch, quality scoring), the description covers return structure, SLA, error states, env var requirement, and limits, making it complete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are present. The tool description adds examples (e.g., CPV codes like 72000000), default behaviors (published_after defaults to 30 days), and clarifies ISO-2 format, enhancing schema info.

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 explicitly states it aggregates public procurement tenders from multiple named government sources, with details on what is returned. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by its multi-jurisdiction 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?

The 'Use when' section provides clear use cases (B2G needs, pipeline building, CPV monitoring, market sizing) and lists key inputs. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but context is strong.

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

All gapup-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources