mcp.xynaptic

tender-search

Xynaptic Tender Search — French public procurement notices (BOAMP, official open data): search calls for tenders by keyword, buyer, department over the last N days. Each notice: object, family, department, publication date, direct BOAMP link. Sell to whom? Track your clients tenders, find business, monitor competitors. GET ?q=informatique (&buyer=ACME&dept=75&days=30&limit=5). [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No	query parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / body

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / params / description

Previous value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"

addedInput schema / properties / params / properties

Added value: +{
+  "notices": {
+    "description": "example: [{\"idweb\":\"25-123456\",\"objet\":\"Prestations informatiques...\",\"famille_libelle\":\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "q": {
+    "description": "example: \"informatique\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "total": {
+    "description": "example: 8307",
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[]
```

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses returned fields (object, family, department, publication date, BOAMP link), an example query string, and the per-call price with payment protocol (x402/USDC). Missing are rate limits, pagination behavior, and error handling, but core operational context is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately front-loaded with tool name and purpose, but includes a few marketing-oriented sentences ('Sell to whom? Track...') that could be trimmed. Overall it remains compact and readable for its information density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential return fields, query format, and cost. It lacks pagination details, rate limits, and auth mechanism specifics, but for a simple paid search tool it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema lists a single 'params' object with q, total, and notices, which does not match the actual query parameters. The description compensates by showing the real GET parameters (q, buyer, dept, days, limit) and an example URL, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema's example-only descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (French public procurement notices from BOAMP), and distinguishes itself from generic search tools by naming the domain and data source. An agent can identify it as the tender-search tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear use-case context ('Track your clients tenders, find business, monitor competitors') so the agent understands the intended scenarios. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but no misleading guidance is given.

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

All mcp.xynaptic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?