brdata-mcp

Search Brazilian public tenders (PNCP)

search_tenders

Search Brazilian public procurement tenders (PNCP) by keyword to retrieve normalized references with CNPJ, year, control number, and PNCP URL for detail lookups.

Instructions

Search Brazilian public procurement tenders (PNCP) by keyword. Returns normalized references (CNPJ/year/sequential, control number, PNCP URL) ready for detail lookups. Paid ($0.05).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_tenders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page (default 1).
`query`	Yes	Keyword(s), min 3 chars.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature and the returned fields but does not mention pagination behavior (the page parameter), potential result limits, or filtering by date/status. It lacks detail on what happens if the query has no results.

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?

Two sentences convey purpose, result format, and pricing. No filler or repetition. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and cost. Minor gaps exist (pagination, result limits), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 two parameters (query and page), with minLength and minimum constraints documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'by keyword' for query and no mention of page. With full schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches Brazilian public procurement tenders by keyword and returns normalized references (CNPJ/year/sequential, control number, PNCP URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tender, decode_tender_id, etc., which are for specific lookups.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates the output is 'ready for detail lookups,' guiding the agent to use subsequent tools like get_tender. It also mentions the cost ($0.05), which is a usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

Deploy Server