No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 14 tools
Most tools have clear, distinct roles: tender search/detail, code browsing/searching, and canton listing are easy to tell apart. However, list_institutions and search_proc_offices overlap somewhat, and search_oag_codes vs browse_oag_tree could confuse an agent without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern using get, list, search, or browse. The verbs map predictably to operations, and abbreviations like cpv, bkp, npk, and oag are used consistently across search and browse tools.
With 14 tools, the server stays within the ideal range and each tool earns its place in the Swiss public procurement workflow. The eight code-related tools are justified by four distinct code systems, each needing both search and hierarchy browsing.
The core workflows of searching tenders and retrieving tender details are well covered, along with code hierarchies and institution lookup. Minor gaps exist: there is no direct institution-detail endpoint or tenders-by-institution endpoint, and no document/attachment access, but agents can work around these via search_tenders filters and get_tender_details.