Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_contrato_ocorrencias

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista ocorrências/penalidades (/api/contrato/{id}/ocorrencias).

Indicador-chave da confiabilidade do fornecedor. Paginação client-side. Cache 15 min.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache. These are practical operational caveats that help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, usage signal, pagination, and cache are covered in a few short lines without filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

Given the read-only/idempotent annotations, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for safe invocation. The cache and pagination notes cover the main non-obvious calling conventions.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description is not expected to re-explain them. The pagination note adds some behavioral color but does not need to add schema-level parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lista ocorrências/penalidades") and gives the endpoint route, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly call out how it differs from related sibling tools such as compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor, leaving some distinction to inference.

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?

"Indicador-chave da confiabilidade do fornecedor" supplies useful usage context, but it does not say when to use this tool over the related sanctions/supplier tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but 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