Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_contrato_faturas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista NFs/faturas (/api/contrato/{id}/faturas).

Paginação client-side. Cache 15 min. Atenção LGPD: o campo infcomplementar (texto livre) pode conter nome de servidor + matrícula SIAPE não estruturados — o mascaramento LGPD só cobre CPFs em campos nominais (cpf, niResponsavel, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paginaNoPágina de resultados (1-based). Padrão 1.
id_contratoYesID do contrato no Comprasnet.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses client-side pagination behavior, a 15-minute cache, and a specific LGPD limitation: `infcomplementar` may contain unstructured server names and SIAPE numbers that masking does not cover. These are exactly the behavioral and data-sensitivity traits an agent needs before invoking or interpreting results.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose and endpoint first, then behavior, then a necessary privacy caveat. No redundant restatement of schema or annotations; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, endpoint, pagination model, cache freshness, and a data-protection caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result correctly appears to be missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `id_contrato`, `pagina`, and `tamanho_pagina`. The description adds the key semantic that pagination is client-side, which changes how an agent should interpret `pagina` and `tamanho_pagina`, and it flags the sensitive `infcomplementar` field relevant to interpreting returned data.

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?

Description opens with 'Lista NFs/faturas' and the exact endpoint `/api/contrato/{id}/faturas`, giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contract-subresource tools like `compras_contrato_empenhos` or `compras_contrato_garantias`, even though no sibling is named.

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?

The stated purpose 'Lista NFs/faturas' gives clear context for when to call it: whenever invoices/NFS for a contract are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but among the many contract-related siblings the resource term is unambiguous.

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