Skip to main content
Glama
VladyslavMykhailyshyn

Prozorro MCP Server

by VladyslavMykhailyshyn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as searching for government tenders, making it distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'search_tenders' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern. Since there are no other tools to compare, the naming is inherently consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server focused on government tenders, as it suggests an incomplete surface. For this domain, typical operations like viewing tender details, submitting bids, or managing updates are missing, making the set feel thin and under-scoped.

    Completeness2/5

    The server has a significant gap in functionality for government tenders. While searching is covered, essential operations such as retrieving specific tender information, creating or updating tenders, and handling bid processes are absent, which will likely cause agent failures in real-world scenarios.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search functionality but fails to describe key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning optional parameters or result handling.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, result format, limitations, or error conditions, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional context.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description lists the search criteria (EDRPOUCode, legal name, date range), which aligns with some parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so the description adds minimal value beyond restating what is in the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    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 resource 'government tenders', specifying search criteria (EDRPOUCode, legal name, date range). It is specific and actionable, but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other methods or tools, such as for filtering or sorting options. It lists search parameters but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative approaches, offering minimal usage direction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

prozorro-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

prozorro-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VladyslavMykhailyshyn/prozorro-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server