Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dgcp-mcp-server

dgcp-mcp-server

by edwin042331-hue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Auditor de pliegos dirigidos (DGCP)

dgcp_auditor_pliego_trampa
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect brand-name, exclusivity, or subjective criteria in procurement documents and generate a ready-to-submit clarification request for the portal.

Instructions

Revisa si un proceso tiene senales de pliego dirigido o barreras indebidas:

  • Marcas o nombres comerciales en titulo, articulos o el extracto del pliego (Art. 91 P. II Ley 47-25: prohibidas salvo que no exista otra forma de describir el objeto).

  • Exigencias de exclusividad y criterios subjetivos de evaluacion (Art. 91 P. I: especificaciones que crean obstaculos innecesarios).

  • Plazo de convocatoria inferior al minimo (Art. 101) y fecha limite para pedir aclaraciones (Art. 102). Genera la solicitud de aclaracion lista para el buzon del portal. Pega en 'extracto_pliego' las especificaciones del PDF para un analisis completo.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codigo_procesoYesCodigo oficial del proceso.
extracto_pliegoNoTexto de clausulas o especificaciones tecnicas del pliego a auditar (copiado del PDF).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv5.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / codigo_proceso / description
      Previous value: -"Codigo oficial del proceso en la DGCP (ej. 'MICM-CCC-LPN-2026-0007')."New value: +"Codigo oficial del proceso."
    • addedInput schema / properties / codigo_proceso / minLength
      Added value: +3
    • changedInput schema / properties / extracto_pliego / description
      Previous value: -"Texto, clausula o requerimiento del pliego de condiciones que sospechas que esta amarrado o dirigido."New value: +"Texto de clausulas o especificaciones tecnicas del pliego a auditar (copiado del PDF)."
  2. First observedv4.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it generates a clarification request ready for the portal inbox and that pasting the pliego extract enables a complete analysis.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a tight bullet list to detail legal checks before closing with an input instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a complex legal-audit tool with no output schema, the description explains what it checks, the legal basis, and the expected output (a clarification request). It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the return format or any limitations of the analysis beyond the input guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning for 'extracto_pliego' by explaining that it should contain the PDF's specifications and that providing it enables a complete analysis; 'codigo_proceso' is left to the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: reviewing a process for signs of a directed tender ('pliego dirigido') or improper barriers. It enumerates the exact legal checks (trademarks, exclusivity, subjective criteria, deadlines), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dgcp_auditoria_colusion or dgcp_generador_recurso_impugnacion.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: auditing a procurement process for directed-tender signals, and it instructs the agent to paste the pliego extract for complete analysis. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools for related tasks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools