brdata-mcp

List documents of a Brazilian tender (PNCP)

get_tender_documents

Retrieve download URIs for documents of a Brazilian public tender using buyer CNPJ, year, and PNCP sequential number. Get metadata links to edital PDFs and item lists in ZIP format.

Instructions

Document list (download URIs) of a Brazilian public tender. ZIPs usually contain the full edital PDF and item list. Metadata only — files are not fetched. Paid ($0.01).

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>",
      "year": "<year>",
      "seq": "<seq>"
    },
    "name": "get_tender_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seq`	Yes	PNCP sequential (NOT the Compras.gov.br number).
`cnpj`	Yes	Buyer agency CNPJ (14 digits).
`year`	Yes	Tender year (>= 2021).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses that files are not fetched (metadata only), that ZIPs typically contain edital PDF and item list, and that there is a cost ($0.01). This covers key behavioral traits aside from authorization or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose and provide essential context without waste. Every sentence adds value: tool purpose, ZIP contents, and metadata/payment note.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result type (URIs), content hints (ZIPs contain PDF and item list), and cost. Missing mentions of pagination or limits, but adequate for the complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The payment note is a general behavioral aspect, not parameter-related.

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 verb ('list') and resource ('documents of a Brazilian public tender'), and specifies it returns download URIs. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tender and get_tender_items by focusing on document URIs.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies usage for listing document URIs but lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions.

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

Deploy Server