Consulta CEPIM — Entidades Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos Impedidas.
Endpoint /api-de-dados/cepim. Aplicável a contratações via convênios
e termos de fomento com OSCs.
Cache 1h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | No | CNPJ da entidade (14 dígitos). | |
| nome | No | Nome da entidade (busca textual). | |
| pagina | No | Página (1-based). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact endpoint and a 1-hour cache, which informs an agent about data freshness and repeated-call expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by the endpoint, applicability, and cache behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read-only query tool with three optional, fully described parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what is queried, when it applies, where to call, and how caching behaves. No critical operational detail is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (cnpj, nome, pagina) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('CEPIM — Entidades Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos Impedidas'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also adds an applicability context (convênios and termos de fomento with OSCs), which distinguishes it from sibling sanction-registry tools like CEIS, CNEP, and CEAF even without naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when the tool applies: contratações via convênios and termos de fomento with OSCs. It does not, however, contrast this with alternative sanction tools or provide explicit exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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).
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.