SiteCheck Company Records

EU public procurement notices from TED, filtered by buyer

gov_ted_eu_procurement

Read-only

EU public procurement notices from TED (Tenders Electronic Daily), filtered by buyer country (ISO 3-letter code) and publication date within the last 1 to 90 days. Returns number, date, notice type, title, buyer and PDF link. Search covers published notices only. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_anac_italy_procurement when you need Italian public procurement datasets from ANAC open data. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "gov_ted_eu_procurement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look back 1 to 90 days (default 30)
`limit`	No	Notices to return, 1 to 20 (default 5)
`country`	Yes	Buyer country, ISO 3-letter code, e.g. DEU, FRA, ITA

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`source`	No
`country`	No
`notices`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalNotices`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: output fields returned, the restriction to published notices only, and an explicit pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls free). That cost/auth detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It does not cover rate limits or result-window behavior beyond the day range.

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?

Retrieval scope and return fields are front-loaded, followed by the scope caveat, the sibling pointer, and the pricing note. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the field list is arguably redundant, but the description still covers scope, filters, alternative routing, and payment model for a simple three-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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 all three parameters are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description restates the ISO 3-letter country code and the 1-90 day window without adding format examples or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (EU public procurement notices from TED) and its two filters (buyer country ISO code, publication date), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling gov_anac_italy_procurement. An agent can tell what it retrieves and what it does not (Italian ANAC datasets) without opening the schema.

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 names one concrete alternative and the condition that selects it (Italian procurement from ANAC), and states the scope restriction that only published notices are searched. It stops short of routing against the many other tender siblings on the server (gov_uk_gov_tenders, gov_canadabuys_tenders, gov_dibbs_rfq), so the guidance is clear but incomplete for a crowded category.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

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

Need Help?