Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brdata-mcp

brdata-mcp

by thomenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Decode a Compras.gov.br tender id (offline)

decode_tender_id

Decode a 17-digit Compras.gov.br tender ID to extract UASG, modality (in English), number, and year.

Instructions

Offline decode of a Compras.gov.br 17-digit tender id (UASG + modality + number + year), with the modality name in English. Paid ($0.005).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "decode_tender_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes17-digit Compras.gov.br id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'offline' and cost ($0.005), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise sentence that conveys essential information (offline, input format, cost). It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input structure and mentions the modality name as output. However, it does not fully describe the output format (e.g., object keys) or any error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the id structure (UASG + modality + number + year) and indicating the output includes the modality name in English. This helps the agent understand input specifics and expected output.

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 clearly states the tool decodes a 17-digit Compras.gov.br tender id into components (UASG, modality, number, year) and provides the modality name in English. It distinguishes itself from siblings like decode_boleto or decode_nfe_key by specifying the exact input and output.

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 use when you have a tender ID and need its decoded components, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_tender or resolve_tender, nor does it mention 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