Lista garantias contratuais (/api/contrato/{id}/garantias).
Paginação client-side. Cache 15 min.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pagina | No | Página de resultados (1-based). Padrão 1. | |
| id_contrato | Yes | ID do contrato no Comprasnet. | |
| tamanho_pagina | No | Quantidade de registros por página. Padrão 50, máximo 500. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational detail beyond annotations: client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache, both of which affect how an agent should interpret calls and pagination parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact: purpose, endpoint, pagination model, and cache TTL in four short fragments. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It covers what is listed, how pagination works, and cache behavior, so no critical operational detail appears missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters, including defaults and maximum page size, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the 'client-side pagination' nuance, which modestly clarifies the behavior of pagina/tamanho_pagina but does not substantially augment the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('garantias contratuais') and includes the exact endpoint path, making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the many compras_contrato_* siblings, none of which target guarantees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is inferable: list contractual guarantees for a given contract ID. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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).
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.