Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Detalhar contratação

senado_contratacao_detalhe
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detalha uma seção específica de uma contratação já identificada pelo id. tipo indica a natureza do registro: contratos (contrato firmado; padrão), atas_registro_preco (compromisso de preços para compras futuras) ou notas_empenho (reserva orçamentária do gasto). secao escolhe o aspecto: itens, pagamentos, garantias (qualquer tipo), aditivos (só contratos) ou acionamentos (só atas_registro_preco). Retorna { id, tipo, secao, count, total, itens } com os registros brutos da seção (campos conforme a API administrativa), limitados a limite (padrão 100, máx 500) — count < total indica truncagem; seção sem registros retorna count 0 e itens vazio; combinações secao×tipo inválidas (ex.: aditivos fora de contratos) retornam erro. Atenção: a fonte NÃO publica o valor do contrato em nenhuma seção; apenas aditivos traz valor, referente ao termo aditivo (às vezes nulo) — não procure valor monetário em itens/pagamentos/garantias. Obtenha o id via senado_contratos ou senado_contratacoes_lista — para localizar a contratação (não detalhá-la) use aquelas ferramentas.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID da contratação (campo 'id' das listas de contratos/atas/empenhos)
tipoNocontratos = contrato firmado (padrão); atas_registro_preco = compromisso de preços p/ compras futuras; notas_empenho = reserva orçamentária do gastocontratos
secaoYesAspecto a detalhar: itens/pagamentos/garantias (qualquer tipo); aditivos (só contratos); acionamentos (só atas_registro_preco)
limiteNoMáximo de itens (padrão 100, máx 500); count < total sinaliza corte

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: truncation semantics (count < total), empty-section behavior, invalid-combination errors, raw administrative fields, and the important caveat that the source does not publish contract value except in aditivos. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, parameter semantics, return shape, caveats, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core action and clearly structured so an agent can extract the needed behavior quickly.

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 two enums, one long id parameter, and numerous behavioral edge cases, the description covers everything an agent needs: valid combinations, defaults, limits, error cases, empty responses, return shape, data caveats, and how to obtain the required id. It is complete even without relying on the output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description goes beyond it by explaining how tipo and secao interact, which combinations are valid, and what limite means in terms of count < total. It also tells the agent where to obtain id, adding operational meaning not present in the schema.

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: 'Detalha uma seção específica de uma contratação já identificada pelo id'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling lookup tools by stating that senado_contratos and senado_contratacoes_lista are for locating the contracting record, not detailing it.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: use senado_contratos or senado_contratacoes_lista to locate the contracting id, and use this tool to detail a specific section. It also states invalid secao×tipo combinations produce errors, so the agent knows which calls to avoid.

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

All Dados Abertos Senado BR 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools perform overlapping functions (e.g., senado_buscar_materias vs senado_search_processos, senado_contratos vs senado_contratacoes_lista, and three e-cidadania consultation tools). Although descriptions are detailed, an agent can easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the 'senado_' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: some use Portuguese verbs (buscar, listar, obter), others English 'search', and some are bare nouns (senado_ceaps, senado_mesa, senado_vetos). This mixed convention reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

67 tools is far above the 25 threshold, indicating an overgrown surface. While each tool may serve a niche endpoint, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to choose efficiently, and many tools could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers nearly every aspect of Senate open data (legislative, senatorial, committee, administrative, financial, e-cidadania) with list/detail/searches. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct consolidated contract search, but most workflows can be achieved.

Resources