ke-tenders-audit-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_awardsB | Find published awards. All filters optional. buyer: part of the buyer name. item: word from the title or item group. supplier: company name. category: goods|services|works. method: open|selective|direct. date_from/date_to: YYYY-MM-DD signing date. If nothing matches, explains why and suggests close buyer names. |
| price_benchmarkB | Compare one tender's award value with similar awards (same item group and category). Returns median, quartiles, ratio to median, outlier yes/no. Says so when under 5 comparables. |
| supplier_profileA | Profile a supplier company: bids listed, awards won, win rate, buyers, single-bidder wins. Uses fuzzy matching on the company name. Company records only, never personal details. |
| check_red_flagsB | Integrity checks for one tender (ocid) or all awards of a buyer. Single bidder, direct method, signed before tender closed, just below a round amount, repeat winner at the same buyer. Data problems are listed separately and are not flags. |
| file_flagA | WRITE, needs human approval. Add one flag to the case file. finding: the pattern in one plain sentence. evidence: the numbers behind it. Refused if the ocid is unknown or the wording decides the award or declares wrongdoing. |
| draft_reportA | WRITE. Build the committee report (report.md) from the approved flags in a case. Needs a named human approver. Each finding in the report cites its OCDS record. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| data_quality_notes | Known problems in the PPRA feed and how the tools handle them. |
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: search, benchmark, profile, flag detection, flag filing, and reporting. There is mild overlap between price_benchmark and check_red_flags (both analyze award patterns) and between supplier_profile and check_red_flags, but the descriptions make the boundaries reasonably clear.
Four tools follow a verb-first pattern (search_awards, check_red_flags, file_flag, draft_report), while price_benchmark and supplier_profile use a noun-first pattern. Readable overall, but the convention is mixed rather than predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for an audit workflow spanning discovery, analysis, flagging, and reporting. It is on the leaner side but each tool clearly earns its place; no redundancy.
The surface covers the full audit lifecycle: find awards, benchmark prices, profile suppliers, detect red flags, file flags, and produce a report. A detail-retrieval tool (e.g. get_award/get_tender by ocid) is a minor gap, but agents can work around it via search.