Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP SECOP II Colombia

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to query Ecuador government procurement (SERCOP/Compras Públicas) data without API keys, via natural language or direct tools.
      273 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables an LLM to answer questions about Colombian public procurement from the SECOP II electronic contracts open dataset on datos.gov.co, with typed queries that are built into SoQL by the server. A column allowlist and local entity directory keep personal-data fields unreachable and resolve institution names to NITs, so users get aggregate contract figures without writing queries themselves.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Connects AI assistants and agents with the Dominican Republic's public procurement transactional portal and open data API, enabling searches of tenders, contracts, bids, and suppliers, plus legal threshold calculations, proposal drafting, scoring simulations, collusion auditing, and institutional scorecards.
      17
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables access to Chile's government procurement data (Mercado Público / ChileCompra) via MCP, allowing AI agents to query public procurement information.
      269 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to query Paraguay's public procurement data via the official DNCP API v3 (OCDS), including tender processes, awards, contracts, suppliers, contracting entities, product catalog, and visualizations.
      17
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.1/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct roles: search, crawl, inspect, RAG chunking, taxonomy, bridge diagnostics, feed management, and budget analysis. Some potential overlap exists between search, spider crawl, and opportunity inspection since all involve retrieving SECOP II data, but descriptions make the intended granularity reasonably clear.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools use the secop_ prefix and snake_case, which is highly predictable. Minor deviations appear in action-style consistency, especially secop_bridge_status and secop_spider_crawl, where the verb_noun pattern is less clean than in tools like secop_search_processes or secop_generate_rag_chunks.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for an integration server covering SECOP II search, crawling, inspection, RAG preparation, taxonomy, bridge diagnostics, feed management, and budget analysis. Each tool appears to serve a distinct function rather than bloating the surface.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the main procurement data workflows: discovery, detailed inspection, crawling, RAG chunk generation, taxonomy mapping, bridge health, feed management, and financial analysis. Minor lifecycle gaps exist, such as no update/delete for RAG feeds and no obvious dedicated contract-by-ID retrieval tool, but core workflows are represented.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues