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

dgcp-mcp-server

by edwin042331-hue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Radiografia de un proveedor del Estado (DGCP)

dgcp_radiografia_proveedor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Profile a supplier in Dominican public procurement by RPE, RNC, or name, showing contracts, clients, bid win rates, UNSPSC categories, and suspension or debarment alerts.

Instructions

Perfil completo y exacto de una empresa en compras publicas a partir de su RPE, RNC o nombre: ficha RPE, alerta de inhabilitacion/suspension, rubros UNSPSC registrados, TODOS sus contratos (monto total, clientes principales, ultimos contratos) y sus ofertas (tasa de exito: procesos ganados / procesos ofertados).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
terminoYesRPE, RNC/cedula o nombre de la empresa.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv5.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / paginas
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Páginas de contratos a escanear para auditoría de facturación estatal (default 15 = 1,500 contratos)",
-  "maximum": 25,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / termino / description
      Previous value: -"Nombre de la empresa, RNC (con o sin guiones) o número de RPE a auditar."New value: +"RPE, RNC/cedula o nombre de la empresa."
    • addedInput schema / properties / termino / minLength
      Added value: +2
  2. First observedv4.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on the read side with no output schema present: it discloses the returned payload (total contract amount, main clients, latest contracts, win/bid success rate, disqualification alert). It omits ambiguity behavior (what happens if a name matches several companies) and any limits on volume.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited payload list; every clause names actual output content rather than filler. It is dense but nothing is redundant, and the purpose precedes the enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly across ficha, alerts, rubros, contracts and bids. Gaps are minor: no mention of how ambiguous name matches are resolved, pagination, or freshness of the underlying data.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description restates 'RPE, RNC o nombre' almost verbatim from the schema and adds no format rules or disambiguation semantics for the free-text name path, which is the one genuinely ambiguous input.

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?

States a specific resource (a state supplier) and an exact input key (RPE, RNC or name), then enumerates what the profile contains: RPE record, suspension alert, UNSPSC rubros, contracts and bids. That enumeration implicitly separates it from single-facet siblings like dgcp_buscar_contratos or dgcp_buscar_ofertas, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'complete and exact profile of a company' framing suggests a per-supplier aggregate lookup, which is the obvious reading next to 16 sibling tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over dgcp_buscar_proveedores (search) or the individual contract/bid search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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