mcp.xynaptic

tender-search

Xynaptic Tender Search — French public procurement notices (BOAMP): search tenders by keyword, buyer, department, last N days. GET ?q=informatique (&buyer=&dept=&days=&limit=). Usage: Use to find French public procurement notices (BOAMP) by keyword, buyer or department. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	query parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / params / properties / q / description
```
Previous value: -"example: \"informatique\""New value: +"required. example: \"informatique\""
```
- addedInput schema / properties / params / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "q"
+]
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "params"
+]
```

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavioral facts: the HTTP verb (GET), the cost ($0.020 per call) and the payment protocol (x402/USDC). However it says nothing about return format, pagination/limit behavior, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a paid network call.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource identity and a concrete query example. Slightly redundant, repeating 'French public procurement notices (BOAMP)' in the Usage sentence, but overall compact and free of padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a search tool with no output schema and a nested 'params' object, the description covers what to query but not what comes back or how paging works. The embedded total/notices fields hint at the response shape but neither description nor schema explains them, so an agent lacks a complete picture.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema only exposes 'q' (with a bare example), while the description surfaces the additional query parameters buyer, dept, days and limit via the example URL. That is real semantic value beyond the schema, though their formats (e.g., department codes, default days) remain unexplained.

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 a precisely scoped resource (French public procurement notices / BOAMP), plus the facets available (keyword, buyer, department). No sibling tool covers tenders or procurement, so an agent can immediately route here 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The 'Usage:' sentence restates the purpose ('find notices by keyword, buyer or department') rather than naming a when/when-not condition or an alternative to prefer. Usage is implied by the domain, but there is no explicit guidance on limits, exclusions, or which sibling (if any) to use instead.

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

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?