Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_pncp_modalidades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cheat sheet local: códigos de modalidade de contratação do PNCP.

Tool local (não chama upstream). Fonte: tabela oficial PNCP (Lei 14.133).

ATENÇÃO — duas tabelas em circulação no ecossistema Compras:

  • codigo aqui (PNCP) é o usado em TODAS as tools compras_pncp_* e em modalidadeIdPncp no payload de retorno.

  • O Dados Abertos / SIASG usa uma enumeração diferente em compras_contratacoes_14133_listar(codigo_modalidade_dados_abertos): campo equivalente_dados_abertos abaixo, ou None se a modalidade não estiver disponível naquele endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the tool is local and does not call upstream, which clarifies its behavior and performance characteristics. It also hints at the output structure by mentioning the `equivalente_dados_abertos` field, but does not fully describe the returned data; however, the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints are adequately complemented.

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, using a title, a brief summary, and a bullet-pointed attention note to convey the key information about the two code tables. It avoids unnecessary detail while providing all essential context.

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?

The description provides complete context for a simple zero-parameter lookup tool: it explains the purpose, the source, the local behavior, and the relationship with other tools via the two-table warning. The output schema is available and the mention of the `equivalente_dados_abertos` field gives enough context for the expected result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Since there are no parameters to misinterpret, the description does not need to add any parameter semantics; the absence of parameters is clear and unambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as a local cheat sheet for PNCP contract modality codes. It states the source (official PNCP table under Lei 14.133) and explicitly distinguishes this code list from the Dados Abertos/SIASG enum, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

The description provides concrete usage guidance by warning about the two different code tables: it specifies that the `codigo` here is used in all `compras_pncp_*` tools and in the `modalidadeIdPncp` payload, while the Dados Abertos endpoint requires a different enum. It also notes that the tool is local and does not call upstream, implying it is appropriate for fast reference without external calls.

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