Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_pncp_contratacao_arquivos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista os ARQUIVOS anexos de uma contratação no PNCP (Edital, TR, ETP...).

Endpoint /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}/compras/{ano}/{sequencial}/arquivos da API pública de arquivos do PNCP (host /api/pncp, sem chave — diferente de /api/consulta, que exige chave-api-dadosabertos e não expõe anexos).

Cada item traz url (download direto do PDF/ZIP), sequencialDocumento, titulo, tipoDocumentoNome (Edital, Termo de Referência, Projeto Básico, Estudo Técnico Preliminar...). Atenção: o arquivo do Edital vem frequentemente como ZIP (por vezes ZIP dentro de ZIP) contendo o TR. Baixe com GET simples na url — não é necessário navegador.

Cache 15 min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoYesAno da contratação (4 dígitos).
cnpjYesCNPJ do órgão (14 dígitos, com ou sem pontuação).
sequencialYesSequencial da contratação, SEM zeros à esquerda (ex.: 2101, não 002101).

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld; description adds concrete behavior: no browser needed, ZIP handling, cache 15 min, no side effects.

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?

Well structured, dense but no fluff; includes endpoint, contrast, item fields, download tip, cache.

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?

Contains enough context for a tool with 3 params and output schema – mentions output fields, URL structure, and download behavior; no missing critical info.

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?

Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (ano, cnpj, sequencial) at 100%; description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (ARQUIVOS anexos de uma contratação no PNCP). Clearly differentiates from /api/consulta by noting this endpoint is public without key and exposes anexos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly contrasts with /api/consulta (requires chave, no anexos), gives download instructions (GET simples na url), and notes cache. Provides clear when and how to use.

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