Skip to main content
Glama

tenderapi-mcp

by io.github.IDNSIDNS

get_tender

Read-onlyIdempotent

Récupère la fiche complète d'un appel d'offres par son identifiant.

À utiliser après `search_tenders` pour obtenir le détail d'un avis
(description intégrale, documents, contacts, champs bruts).

Les avis BOAMP les plus succincts n'ont ni description ni CPV : `source_url`
renvoie alors vers l'avis d'origine.

Accès anonyme et gratuit, limité à 30 appels par jour et par IP ; la réponse
indique le solde restant dans sa clé `quota`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tender_idYesL'entier du champ `id` renvoyé par search_tenders, ex. '3780679'. Ni le `source_id` (« 26-79926 »), ni l'URL de l'avis.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: anonymous access, a 30-calls-per-day-per-IP limit, that the response includes a `quota` key, and that some notices lack description/CPV with `source_url` as fallback. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise at four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, edge case, and rate-limit disclosure. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundant phrasing.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's role in the workflow, limitations, quota information, and edge cases. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The combination of annotations, schema, and description leaves no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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% – the schema already thoroughly explains `tender_id` (the `id` field from search_tenders, excluding `source_id` and URL). The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning, so with high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un appel d'offres par son identifiant' (retrieves the complete record of a call for tenders by its identifier). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by stating it is used 'après search_tenders' to obtain the detail, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'À utiliser après search_tenders pour obtenir le détail' tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and its relationship to the search tool. It also clarifies an edge case (BOAMP notices without description/CPV) and mentions the rate limit, giving complete context for invocation.

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

All tenderapi-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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: searching across tenders, retrieving one tender's full detail, and simulating an alert delivery. The descriptions clearly separate one-shot search from recurring alert preview, so there is little risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_tender, search_tenders, preview_alerts. The verbs clearly express the action and the nouns are appropriate, creating a predictable naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped to its read-only tender search and alert preview purpose. Each tool adds a distinct capability and none feel redundant or missing.

Completeness4/5

The core search-and-retrieve workflow is well covered, and preview_alerts adds useful simulation. However, there is no tool to actually create or manage real alerts, and award/winner data is explicitly unavailable, leaving minor but documented gaps.

Resources