Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_pncp_contratacoes_publicacao

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista contratações publicadas no PNCP no período.

Endpoint /v1/contratacoes/publicacao. Cobre todos os entes da federação. Modalidades comuns: 6=Pregão Eletrônico, 8=Dispensa, 9=Inexigibilidade, 4=Concorrência Eletrônica.

O filtro esfera (federal/estadual/municipal/distrital) é aplicado client-side sobre a página retornada. Janela máxima por consulta: ~30 dias. Cache 15 min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoSigla da UF.
esferaNoFiltro opcional de esfera federativa (`federal`, `estadual`, `municipal` ou `distrital`). Aplicado client-side sobre a página retornada — útil para recortar a lista, mas note que `_total_registros` continua refletindo o total **sem** filtro de esfera.
paginaNoPágina (1-based).
cnpj_orgaoNoCNPJ do órgão (14 dígitos).
data_finalYesData final de publicação (YYYY-MM-DD).
data_inicialYesData inicial de publicação (YYYY-MM-DD).
tamanho_paginaNoRegistros por página (PNCP mínimo 10).
codigo_modalidadeYesCódigo da modalidade (obrigatório no PNCP). Códigos comuns: 1=Leilão Eletrônico, 4=Concorrência Eletrônica, 6=Pregão Eletrônico, 8=Dispensa, 9=Inexigibilidade, 13=Concurso.
codigo_municipio_ibgeNoCódigo IBGE do município (7 dígitos).

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses key behavioral details: the `esfera` filter is applied client-side, there's a maximum 30-day query window, and results are cached for 15 minutes. These are meaningful operational nuances that an agent would need to know, and they do not contradict the 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 well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, then gives the endpoint, scope, modality examples, a key behavioral caveat, and constraints. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy, and there is no fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and a comprehensive input schema, the description covers the essential context: endpoint, scope, filter behavior, and operational limits. It does not need to repeat return-value details since an output schema exists, and it provides enough for an agent to decide whether to call this tool for a given date-range listing task.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the modality codes and esfera behavior already present in the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista contratações publicadas no PNCP no período' and identifies the exact endpoint (`/v1/contratacoes/publicacao`). It also includes scope details (all federal entities) and common modality codes, which helps distinguish it from similar listing tools. The client-side `esfera` filter is called out, further differentiating its behavior.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose (listing published contracts in a period) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like `compras_pncp_contratacoes_atualizacao` or `compras_contratacoes_14133_listar`. It provides operational constraints (max 30-day window, client-side esfera filter) but no direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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