Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_pncp_ata_arquivos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista os ARQUIVOS de uma Ata de Registro de Preços no PNCP (ata + aditivos).

Endpoint /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}/compras/{anoCompra}/{sequencialCompra}/atas/{sequencialAta}/arquivos da API pública de arquivos do PNCP (/api/pncp, sem chave).

Aditivos de reequilíbrio/prorrogação aparecem como documentos adicionais do tipo Ata de Registro de Preços — diferencie por titulo e dataPublicacaoPncp. Download: GET simples na url de cada item.

Cache 15 min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cnpjYesCNPJ do órgão (14 dígitos, com ou sem pontuação).
ano_compraYesAno da COMPRA que originou a ata.
sequencial_ataYesSequencial da ATA dentro da compra (1-based). É o sufixo numérico de `numeroControlePncpAta` (ex.: `...-000004/2024` → 4).
sequencial_compraYesSequencial da compra, SEM zeros à esquerda.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses useful behaviors: the endpoint is public with no API key, results are cached for 15 minutes, aditivos appear as additional 'Ata de Registro de Preços' documents that must be differentiated by titulo/dataPublicacaoPncp, and downloads use a simple GET on the url. This materially helps the agent interpret results.

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: purpose, endpoint, behavioral caveat, download note, and cache policy are each one sentence. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence carries relevant 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?

With all four required parameters fully documented in the schema, a readOnly/idempotent annotation profile, and an output schema available, the description covers the remaining operational context (auth, cache, aditivos, download mechanism). Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, so the description is not required to compensate. The endpoint path template reiterates the parameter roles but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states the exact operation: 'Lista os ARQUIVOS de uma Ata de Registro de Preços no PNCP (ata + aditivos).' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list atas themselves (e.g., compras_pncp_atas_listar) or list contract files.

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 makes clear this is the tool for retrieving files from a specific ata and that amendments appear as additional documents, with the endpoint scoped to a given ata identifier. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection among the siblings.

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