Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_contratacoes_14133_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta uma contratação 14.133 pelo identificador.

Endpoint /modulo-contratacoes/1.1_consultarContratacoes_PNCP_14133_Id. Devolve detalhes completos: objeto, valor estimado, modalidade, instrumento convocatório, status no PNCP.

Aceita os dois identificadores do PNCP. Use tipo_identificador='idCompra' com o campo idCompra das listagens, ou 'numeroControlePNCPCompra' com o número de controle que aparece no edital (ex.: 10673078000120-1-000021/2025).

Cache 15 min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_contratacaoYesIdentificador da contratação. Aceita dois formatos, conforme `tipo_identificador`: o `idCompra` (17 dígitos, campo `idCompra` das listagens, ex.: '15813206001272025') ou o número de controle PNCP (alfanumérico com barra, campo `numeroControlePNCP`, ex.: '10673078000120-1-000021/2025' — é o número que aparece no edital).
tipo_identificadorNoQual identificador está sendo passado em `id_contratacao`: 'idCompra' (padrão) ou 'numeroControlePNCPCompra'. O upstream rejeita qualquer outro valor com HTTP 500.idCompra

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds the cache trait ('Cache 15 min.') and specifies the returned fields. It does not mention error responses or rate limits, but the overall behavior is transparent enough given the 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 and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then lists the response contents, explains the identifier options, and ends with the cache note. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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?

The description is self-contained and covers the tool's purpose, identifier variants, returned details, and caching. It does not explicitly state error handling (e.g., 404 when identifier not found), but the parameter description mentions upstream HTTP 500 behavior for invalid tipo_identificador, which provides some context.

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?

The input schema already provides highly detailed descriptions for both parameters, including examples and the enum constraint, so the coverage is 100%. The description repeats some of that information but adds little new semantic detail beyond reinforcing the identifier formats and cache behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consulta uma contratação 14.133 pelo identificador.' It specifies the resource type (contratação 14.133), the action (consultar), and the key input (identifier). It also lists the returned details (objeto, valor estimado, modalidade, instrumento convocatório, status), distinguishing it from listing or item-based sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance for choosing between the two identifier formats ('Use tipo_identificador='idCompra'...' or 'numeroControlePNCPCompra'...'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain when to use this consult tool instead of alternative sibling tools like listar or itens_listar, leaving the selection implicit.

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

All MCP Compras.gov.br 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, and descriptions are extremely detailed, often explicitly warning about look-alikes. However, there is real overlap between composite and single-purpose tools (e.g., compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor vs compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo vs compras_sancao_*), and similar-looking pairs like compras_contratos_consultar vs compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar or compras_arp_listar vs compras_pncp_atas_listar require careful reading. With 100 tools, an agent will still face meaningful selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is snake_case with a compras_ prefix, but the order and style vary: some are domain-first (compras_catmat_buscar), some are verb-first (compras_buscar_contratacoes_similares), and some are bare entity names with no verb (compras_sancao_ceis, compras_pncp_modalidades). The many listar/consultar/buscar variants are readable, but the convention is not predictable enough for a 100-tool surface.

Tool Count1/5

100 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, regardless of domain breadth. Even if each tool has a legitimate upstream endpoint, this volume will heavily tax context windows and make reliable tool selection harder. Many tools could be consolidated into parameterized families (e.g., contratos, sancoes, pncp resources).

Completeness4/5

The server covers the Brazilian procurement domain remarkably well: catalogs, ARPs, 14.133 contracts, legacy regime, price research, suppliers, sanctions, PGC/PCA, PNCP, and Comprasnet contract subresources. Minor gaps remain, such as listing a supplier's full contract history without specifying an órgão, and some upstream limitations are only papered over with client-side workarounds.

Resources