HelpMyAgent

French Public Procurement Search

procurement_fr_search

Searches currently open French public procurement opportunities and returns normalized BOAMP tender data ready for automated processing. Use when: You need currently open French public procurement opportunities from BOAMP. You want to search open tenders by keywords, department, buyer or minimum deadline. Avoid when: You need contracts already awarded to a specific company; use company/fr/public-contracts. You need private procurement opportunities or a guarantee that every French public procurement notice is covered. Limitations: Coverage is limited to the BOAMP public dataset and the notices available through that source. At least one of query, department or buyer is required; tender deadlines and notice details can change at the source. Price: 0.010 USD per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buyer`	No	Public buyer name to search for
`limit`	No	Maximum number of open tenders to return
`query`	No	Keywords to search in currently open public procurement notices
`department`	No	French department code
`deadline_after`	No	Only return tenders whose deadline is on or after this YYYY-MM-DD date

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`buyer`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`tenders`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`department`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`deadline_after`	Yes
`returned_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: coverage limited to BOAMP, at least one of query/department/buyer is required, and deadlines/notice details can change at the source. The readOnlyHint is false but the description implies a search operation; this is ambiguous but not a direct contradiction.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every section—Use when, Avoid when, Limitations, Price—earns its place and is easy to scan.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description fully covers selection criteria, exclusions, limitations, required parameter constraints, and even cost. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description mentions keywords, department, buyer, and minimum deadline, which adds framing but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('currently open French public procurement opportunities' from BOAMP), and clearly distinguishes this from awarded-contract tools by naming the sibling alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, names a specific sibling tool for awarded contracts, and identifies coverage limitations. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

All HelpMyAgent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most endpoints target distinct resources, but several clusters are easy to confuse: company_fr_intelligence vs company_fr_kyb, company_fr_peers vs company_fr_competitors vs company_fr_public_contract_competitors, and company_fr_risk vs company_fr_default_score vs company_fr_payment_context. The descriptive names help, but the repetitive 'Use when' sections often restate the description rather than contrasting with nearby tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is domain_fr_feature with consistent snake_case, e.g., company_fr_profile, company_fr_financials, company_fr_public_contracts, procurement_fr_search, which makes the family predictable. The three meta tools (describe_api, list_categories, search_apis) switch to a bare verb_noun style, and a few company_fr names use verbs while most use nouns, creating a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate, especially because aggregators like company_fr_intelligence and company_fr_kyb overlap with many single-purpose endpoints. The broad French-company data domain justifies a large number of endpoints, but several could be consolidated or split out to make the server more focused.

Completeness4/5

The set covers discovery, verification, profile, directors, financials, legal risk, compliance, public contracts, procurement, funding, benchmarking, signals, and aggregation, so core French-company workflows have no major dead ends. Minor gaps remain around beneficial-ownership/shareholder data and subscription-style monitoring, but those are explicitly outside the stated scope of most endpoints.

Resources

Need Help?