Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_indicadores_consolidados

Read-onlyIdempotent

Métricas operacionais consolidadas da API Dados Abertos.

Endpoint /modulo-indicadores/1_consultarIndicadoresConsolidados. Retorna: total de serviços disponíveis, total de requisições no período, percentual de sucesso, latência média (ms), volume total e médio de download (GB). Útil para diagnóstico/observabilidade, não para indicadores de mercado público (ver docstring do módulo).

Cache 1h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paginaNoPágina (1-based). Padrão 1.
tamanho_paginaNoRegistros por página (default 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral details such as the 1-hour cache and the specific metrics returned, with no hidden side effects mentioned or implied.

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: it opens with the tool's purpose, identifies the endpoint, lists the returned metrics, and gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundant restatement of schema details are present.

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 output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values, yet it still lists the main metrics and provides cache and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the two optional parameters (pagina and tamanho_pagina) with defaults and constraints, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the full parameter meaning.

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 purpose: returning consolidated operational metrics for the Dados Abertos API, including service count, request totals, success rate, latency, and download volume. It explicitly distinguishes itself from market-indicator tools by saying it is for diagnostics/observability, not public market indicators.

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 description provides clear usage context: use it for diagnostics/observability and not for market indicators. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as compras_indicadores_por_periodo or compras_healthcheck, but the positive and negative guidance is enough to guide tool selection.

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