Skip to main content
Glama

Brazil Pncp

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Brazil Search Contracts

brazil_search_contracts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search signed Brazilian government contracts (contratos) from the official PNCP portal (Portal Nacional de Contratações Públicas). Covers federal, state, and municipal agencies under Lei 14.133/2021. Returns each contract with its PNCP control id, object (Portuguese), global value in BRL, supplier name and tax id (CNPJ/CPF), contracting agency, state/municipality, and signing/validity dates. Dates are YYYYMMDD and filter by PNCP publication date; omit them to get roughly the last 30 days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based). Default 1.
date_toNoEnd date (PNCP publication) as YYYYMMDD, e.g. "20260601". Defaults to today.
date_fromNoStart date (PNCP publication) as YYYYMMDD, e.g. "20260501". Defaults to ~30 days ago.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "date_from": "20260401",
+    "date_to": "20260501"
+  },
+  {
+    "page": 2
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it names the official portal, the governing law, and exactly what fields each contract record contains (PNCP id, value, supplier, dates, etc.). It also clarifies the date filter applies to PNCP publication date and the default range. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence packs the core action, scope, and return fields. The second sentence provides date usage instructions. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the return fields in detail. Parameter behavior is sufficiently explained, including defaults and format. Pagination is implied via the 'page' parameter. For a search tool with read-only semantics, no additional information is needed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters, each with a description. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the date filter refers to PNCP publication date and that omitting both dates gives roughly the last 30 days. This goes slightly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already include default values and format hints.

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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'signed Brazilian government contracts (contratos) from the official PNCP portal'. It provides thorough context including coverage of federal/state/municipal agencies, the relevant law, and a detailed list of return fields. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like 'brazil_search_tenders' by explicitly focusing on contracts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains date-filtering behavior and the default time range ('omit them to get roughly the last 30 days'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to the sibling tool 'brazil_search_tenders' or state when to use one over the other. While the context is helpful, exclusions or alternatives are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Brazil Pncp 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.

Resources