Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

TED MCP Server: Real-time EU public tenders access. https://www.lexsocket.ai/

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
lexsocket/mcp-ted
GitHub Stars
0

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsB

Average 3.6/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.

Server CoherenceC
Disambiguation2/5

There are multiple pairs of tools with overlapping purposes that will cause confusion. For example, 'browse_by_deadline' and 'browse_tenders_by_deadline' appear to do the same thing but target different data sources (general tenders vs TED tenders), and similarly 'find_similar_ted_tenders' vs 'find_similar_tenders', 'get_ted_stats' vs 'get_stats', and multiple search tools with 'ted' vs non-ted variants. While descriptions clarify the distinction, the naming doesn't make this clear at first glance, leading to misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mostly consistent snake_case pattern, but there are significant inconsistencies in verb usage and structure. Some tools use 'browse_' prefix while others use 'search_', 'get_', or 'find_', without clear semantic distinction. Additionally, there are redundant tools with 'ted' vs non-ted variants that break consistency, and some tools have slightly different parameter names for similar concepts (e.g., 'notice_id' vs 'tender_id').

Tool Count2/5

With 23 tools, this server feels overloaded for a procurement tender domain. Many tools appear to be redundant variations (e.g., separate tools for TED vs national tenders that could be unified with parameters). The count suggests poor API design with duplication rather than well-scoped functionality, making it harder for agents to navigate and increasing the risk of tool misselection.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for searching, browsing, and analyzing procurement tenders across multiple dimensions (deadline, buyer, CPV, NUTS, value range, etc.). It supports both TED and national tenders with statistics and similarity search. The main gap is the lack of update/delete operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only data exploration server focused on public procurement data.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.