Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_contratos_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta um contrato no Dados Abertos (endpoint 1.1).

O upstream exige codigo + tipo. Tipos aceitos pela API: idCompra e numeroControlePncpContrato.

Cache 15 min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tipoNoComo interpretar `codigo`: 'idCompra' (id interno da compra) ou 'numeroControlePncpContrato' (identificador PNCP).numeroControlePncpContrato
codigoYesIdentificador do contrato no upstream — interpretação depende de `tipo`. Para tipo='idCompra' é o id da compra (string numérica). Para tipo='numeroControlePncpContrato' é o número de controle PNCP completo (ex.: '00000000000000-1-000001/2024').

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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational details beyond those annotations: the upstream contract requiring both codigo and tipo, and the 15-minute cache, which informs the agent about freshness. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the required parameter combination, accepted types, and cache note. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only consult with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential call requirements and a staleness caveat. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit navigation among the large sibling set, but the endpoint and parameter semantics provide enough orientation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by flagging that the upstream requires codigo + tipo even though the schema marks tipo optional with a default. It also enumerates the only accepted type values, helping an agent avoid unsupported identifier formats.

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 first sentence, 'Consulta um contrato no Dados Abertos (endpoint 1.1)', states a specific verb and resource with an endpoint qualifier that helps separate it from legacy or Comprasnet contract tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful invocation context: the upstream requires 'codigo + tipo' and lists the accepted type values. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar or compras_contratos_listar, so the usage guidance is 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.

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