MCP Compras.gov.br

compras_pncp_contrato_por_orgao

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific Brazilian public procurement contract from PNCP using the organization's CNPJ, contract year, and sequential number. Supports contract analysis and price research.

Instructions

Consulta um contrato específico no PNCP.

Endpoint /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}/contratos/{ano}/{sequencial}. Cache 15 min.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cnpj": "<cnpj>",
      "ano": "<ano>",
      "sequencial": "<sequencial>"
    },
    "name": "compras_pncp_contrato_por_orgao"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ano`	Yes	Ano do contrato.
`cnpj`	Yes	CNPJ do órgão.
`sequencial`	Yes	Sequencial do contrato.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.14Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the cache duration (15 minutes), which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 concise and to the point: a single functional sentence plus the endpoint and cache note. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple lookup. The description specifies the endpoint and that it queries a specific contract, which is adequate given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema (indicated in context). It does not explicitly describe the response format, but that is not critical for this operation.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (cnpj, ano, sequencial) with clear basic meanings. The description text does not add extra format details, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline is appropriate.

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 that it queries a specific contract in the PNCP, and the endpoint structure reinforces that. It distinguishes from list-like operations by using 'específico', but does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'when you have a specific contract identifier' or contrast with the list endpoint.

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

Deploy Server