Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Compras.gov.br

by io.github.opedrosoares

compras_pncp_pca_por_usuario

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista PCAs vinculados a um usuário/sistema integrador específico.

Endpoint PNCP /v1/pca/usuario. Uso menos comum — geralmente o analista prefere compras_pncp_pca_listar com cnpj_orgao.

Cache 1h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoYesAno do PCA.
paginaNoPágina (1-based).
id_usuarioYesID interno de usuário/sistema integrador do PNCP. Obtido na documentação interna do órgão; raramente usado por analistas.
tamanho_paginaNoRegistros por página.

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
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful caching note ('Cache 1h'), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations, giving the agent additional expectations about response freshness.

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 very concise: two short sentences plus the endpoint and cache note. It immediately states the purpose, provides the usage contrast, and includes all necessary extra context without any redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, explicit alternative, and cache behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (including the meaning of `id_usuario` and defaults for `pagina` and `tamanho_pagina`). The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline score applies.

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 states the tool lists PCAs linked to a specific user/integrator system, with a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the exact endpoint and contrasts it with the preferred sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says this is less common and recommends using `compras_pncp_pca_listar` with `cnpj_orgao` instead, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The parameter description for `id_usuario` reinforces that this is rarely used by analysts.

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