Skip to main content
Glama
edwin042331-hue

dgcp-mcp-server

by edwin042331-hue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Auditoria forense de colusion entre oferentes (DGCP)

dgcp_auditoria_colusion
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit all bids in a procurement process to detect collusion by cross-referencing bidders with RPE records and disqualification lists, flagging shared contacts or identical offers.

Instructions

Audita TODAS las ofertas de un proceso y cruza a cada oferente con su ficha oficial del RPE (consulta exacta por RPE) y con la lista de inhabilitados de la DGCP. Banderas: telefonos, correos, dominios, domicilios o personas de contacto compartidos; ofertas identicas o casi identicas (<=0.5%); empresas creadas poco antes del proceso; oferentes inhabilitados o con RPE no activo; multiples ofertas de un mismo oferente. Base legal: Art. 116 Ley 47-25 (exclusion por practicas colusorias) y Art. 36 (multiplicidad de participacion). Son indicios para verificar, no prueba.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codigo_procesoYesCodigo oficial del proceso a auditar.

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 a auditar (ej. 'TSS-DAF-CM-2026-0055')."New value: +"Codigo oficial del proceso a auditar."
    • addedInput schema / properties / codigo_proceso / minLength
      Added value: +3
    • removedInput schema / properties / paginas
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 15,
-  "description": "Paginas a escanear en ofertas y proveedores para la auditoria forense (default 15)",
-  "maximum": 25,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
  2. First observedv4.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds substantial value beyond those structured fields: it enumerates the specific detection flags, the external data sources consulted, and the legal basis, and notably cautions that results are 'indicios para verificar, no prueba' – a critical behavioral caveat about output interpretation that annotations do not convey. No output schema exists, so disclosing that results are indicators rather than proof is exactly the kind of context needed.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact list of flags and the legal basis. It is dense but every clause (sources, flags, legal articles, indicator disclaimer) earns its place without filler.

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 single-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the data sources, the concrete signals examined, the legal grounding, and the interpretation caveat. The main residual gap is that it does not sketch the structure of the audit report returned, though the indicator disclaimer partially compensates.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with only one required parameter, and the schema already documents codigo_proceso as the official process code. The description adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it audits all offers in a process, cross-referencing each bidder against its official RPE record and the DGCP disqualified list. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dgcp_buscar_ofertas or dgcp_radiografia_proveedor, which are lookup tools rather than cross-analysis of an entire process.

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 description implies when it applies (forensic collusion audit for a process) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as dgcp_inteligencia_proceso or dgcp_radiografia_proveedor, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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