Healthcheck/diagnóstico do MCP. Retorna versão, fontes upstream e estado de configurações sensíveis (sem expor valores).
Útil para confirmar que o servidor está respondendo, qual a versão instalada, quais APIs estão acessíveis e se a chave da Transparência foi configurada (necessária para tools de sanções).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explicitly stating that sensitive configuration values are not exposed and that the tool reports upstream availability and key configuration state. It also clarifies that the tool is a diagnostic healthcheck, consistent with the non-destructive annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information. It avoids fluff while covering what the tool returns, the security guarantee, and relevant use cases.
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?
The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter healthcheck tool: it explains the purpose, the outputs, the privacy behavior, and practical use cases. The only notable gap is the lack of distinction from the compras_healthcheck sibling, which could create ambiguity in tool selection.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. With schema coverage at 100% and no params to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than inputs.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it is a healthcheck/diagnostics tool that returns version, upstream sources, and sensitive configuration state without exposing values. It distinguishes itself from the data-querying sibling tools, but it does not differentiate from the sibling compras_healthcheck, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: confirm the server is responding, check installed version, verify accessible APIs, and check whether the Transparência key is configured for sanctions tools. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, especially relative to the similar compras_healthcheck sibling.
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.