Skip to main content
Glama

Dados Abertos Senado BR MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Suprimento de fundos

senado_suprimento_fundos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Suprimento de fundos do Senado (adiantamentos a supridos): relação anual de supridos, atos de concessão, empenhos, movimentações ou transações de cartão corporativo, conforme tipo. Retorna { ano, tipo, count, total, registros } (snake_case da API administrativa), filtrável por filtro textual e limitado por limite (padrão 100, máx 500); ao truncar, inclui aviso. Para maior/menor/média/mediana/distribuição/ranking ('quem mais recebeu', 'fornecedor com maior gasto', 'valor mediano') use estatisticas=true (só nos tipos transacoes, empenhos, atos-concessao — os demais não têm coluna de valor): SEM agruparPor = distribuição das linhas (min/máx/média/mediana/percentis) + top/bottom; COM agruparPor = grupos ranqueados por soma decrescente (grupos[0]=maior). A coluna de valor analisada é escolhida automaticamente conforme o tipo; o resultado já traz o rótulo legível dela em campoAnalisado. Registros sem valor são excluídos das estatísticas. Em atos de concessão, cada beneficiário é identificado pelo NOME (cruzado com o cadastro de supridos) e pode-se usar agruparPor='suprido' para ranquear por beneficiário. Informe o ano (>=2010); use os mesmos códigos administrativos vistos em senado_contratacoes_lista ou senado_execucao_orcamentaria para cruzar gastos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoYesAno de referência
tipoNoQual relação consultar (padrão: supridos)supridos
topNNoTamanho do top/bottom nas estatísticas (padrão: 10)
campoNoOpcional: força a coluna de valor analisada; por padrão ela é escolhida conforme o tipo. Se a opção não se aplicar ao tipo, o padrão é usado automaticamente.
filtroNoFiltro textual (nome, unidade...)
limiteNoMáximo de resultados (padrão: 100)
agruparPorNoOpcional: agrupa e ranqueia os resultados por esta dimensão (as opções válidas dependem do tipo; em atos de concessão, `suprido` agrupa por beneficiário, com o nome).
estatisticasNoDistribuição/ranking sobre as linhas: min/máx/média/mediana/percentis + top/bottom, ou grupos ranqueados por soma via agruparPor. Só para tipo transacoes/empenhos/atos-concessao

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?

Despite annotations already marking this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds important runtime behavior: response shape, truncation `aviso`, exclusion of valueless records from stats, automatic value-column selection with `campoAnalisado`, and the semantic difference between stats with and without `agruparPor`. This far exceeds what the annotations supply.

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 largely efficient; it front-loads purpose and return structure before diving into statistics behavior. The long one-paragraph, semicolon-heavy layout could be clearer with subheadings or bullets, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 8 parameters, 3 enums, and conditional statistics behavior, the description covers every parameter's role, defines limits/defaults, lists type-specific restrictions, and even explains beneficiary naming in concessão data. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without additional research.

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%, yet the description goes beyond simple enumeration: it explains how `estatisticas` interacts with `agruparPor`, which value column applies to which `tipo`, the `campo` fallback, and that `agruparPor='suprido'` works on beneficiary names in atos-concessao data. This is substantial added meaning beyond the JSON 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: annual data on Senate fund supplies (adiantamentos a supridos), enumerating the exact relations available via `tipo`. It also names related spending tools for cross-referencing, so an agent can distinguish this from other financial siblings like `senado_execucao_orcamentaria` or `senado_ceaps`.

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 usage context: require `ano`, choose among relation types, and use `estatisticas=true` for analytical queries, with explicit type restrictions. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling alternative over this tool, but it does point to `senado_contratacoes_lista` and `senado_execucao_orcamentaria` for cross-referencing codes.

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