Consulta uma licitação legado pelo id_compra.
Endpoint /modulo-legado/1.1_consultarLicitacao_Id. Upstream exige
id_compra (string), não um id numérico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_compra | Yes | ID da compra no SIASG (string, retornado em `compras_legado_licitacoes_listar`). |
| 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it exposes the upstream endpoint and warns that upstream expects a string id_compra rather than a numeric id — a behavioral pitfall an agent would otherwise only discover at call time.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second carries the endpoint plus the type caveat. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately scoped for a single-parameter tool.
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 1-parameter consult with an output schema present, rich safety annotations, and 100% schema coverage, nothing essential is missing. The description covers purpose, endpoint, and the critical type expectation; the schema covers parameter provenance; the output schema covers return shape.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the schema documents id_compra as a SIASG string returned by the listar tool), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal but meaningful value by stressing that upstream requires the string form and explicitly rejects a numeric id, reinforcing the type constraint against a common agent error.
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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Consulta uma licitação legado' — and the lookup key 'pelo id_compra'. It also names the exact upstream endpoint (`/modulo-legado/1.1_consultarLicitacao_Id`), which disambiguates it from sibling legacy tools (pregoes, rdc). This is a fetch-by-id operation clearly distinct from compras_legado_licitacoes_listar.
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 description conveys the usage context: consult a single legacy licitação when you hold an id_compra. It adds an implicit when-not warning ('não um id numérico'), and the schema parameter description completes the workflow by stating the id comes from compras_legado_licitacoes_listar. It names no explicit alternative, so it misses the top tier, but the context is clear.
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.