Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista contratos de uma UASG no Comprasnet.

Atenção: o upstream /api/contrato/ug/{uasg} não suporta paginação — devolve a lista completa em uma resposta única (pode passar de 1 MB). Esta tool fatia o resultado client-side conforme pagina + tamanho_pagina para evitar inundar o LLM.

Cache 15 min do payload completo; fatiamento por chamada é barato.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ativosNoSe True (padrão), lista apenas contratos ativos. Set False para incluir inativos via /api/contrato/inativo/ug/{uasg}.
paginaNoPágina de resultados (1-based). Padrão 1.
codigo_uasgYesCódigo UASG (5-6 dígitos).
tamanho_paginaNoQuantidade de registros por página. Padrão 50, máximo 500.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the upstream endpoint does not support pagination, that the tool slices results client-side, and that caching lasts 15 minutes. These are valuable behavioral details not covered by 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: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an attention note about pagination and a cache note. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description, combined with the output schema (which exists per context signals), provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Pagination behavior and caching are explained, and the output format is presumably covered by the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema descriptions fully cover all four parameters, and the tool description adds context for pagina and tamanho_pagina by explaining the upstream limitation and the client-side slicing rationale. This adds usability beyond the schema alone.

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 function: listing contracts for a UASG in Comprasnet. It specifically mentions the UASG scope and the pagination behavior, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other contract-listing 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 explains the tool's internal behavior (client-side pagination, caching) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar siblings like compras_contratos_listar. The usage context is inferable from the name and description, but explicit guidance is missing.

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