IBGE Brasil MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli

Overview Discussions Admin

Detalhes de localidade

ibge_localidade

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns details of a specific locality by IBGE code.

Features:

State information (2-digit code)
Municipality information (7-digit code)
District information (9-digit code)
Complete hierarchy (region, mesoregion, microregion)

Examples:

São Paulo state: codigo=35
São Paulo city: codigo=3550308
District: codigo=355030805

This tool returns the full record of ONE locality you already have the code for. Use a different tool when:

You have a name and need the code → ibge_municipios (municipalities) or ibge_geocodigo (any level)
You want to decompose/understand a code's structure → ibge_geocodigo

Behavior: read-only and idempotent — a live GET against the public IBGE Localidades API. Returns a Markdown record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tipo`	No	Tipo da localidade. Se não informado, será inferido pelo tamanho do código.
`codigo`	Yes	Código IBGE da localidade (estado: 2 dígitos, município: 7 dígitos, distrito: 9 dígitos)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Código IBGE da localidade
`nome`	Yes	Nome da localidade
`tipo`	Yes	Tipo da localidade retornada
`sigla`	No	Sigla da UF (apenas para estados)
`estado`	No	Estado da localidade (município ou distrito)
`regiao`	No	Região do estado (apenas para estados)
`municipio`	No	Município ao qual o distrito pertence (apenas para distritos)
`provenance`	Yes	Bloco de proveniência (contrato v1.1): fonte, URL, período, extração, diagnóstico de origem e licença
`attribution`	Yes	URLs canônicas das fontes desta resposta (lista de atribuição)
`mesorregiao`	No	Mesorregião do município
`microrregiao`	No	Microrregião do município
`regiaoImediata`	No	Região imediata do município
`regiaoIntermediaria`	No	Região intermediária do município

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / description

Previous value: -"Bloco de proveniência (contrato v1.0): fonte, URL, período, extração e licença"New value: +"Bloco de proveniência (contrato v1.1): fonte, URL, período, extração, diagnóstico de origem e licença"

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance / properties / retrieval

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "anomalies": {
+          "description": "Anomalias superadas até o sucesso, somadas por classe, em ordem fixa; [] se nenhuma",
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "count": {
+                "description": "Ocorrências desta classe na chamada",
+                "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+                "minimum": 1,
+                "type": "integer"
+              },
+              "kind": {
+                "description": "Classe da anomalia (vocabulário fechado do contrato)",
+                "enum": [
+                  "timeout",
+                  "network",
+                  "http_4xx",
+                  "http_5xx",
+                  "rate_limited",
+                  "malformed_body"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "kind",
+              "count"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "attempts": {
+          "description": "Tentativas somadas, incluindo as repetidas (>= requests)",
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": 1,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "requests": {
+          "description": "Idas distintas à origem que compõem esta resposta (fatias, páginas)",
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": 1,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "unstable": {
+          "description": "true se houve repetição (attempts > requests) ou alguma anomalia",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requests",
+        "attempts",
+        "anomalies",
+        "unstable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Diagnóstico de origem desta chamada (contrato v1.1): idas à API do IBGE, tentativas somadas e anomalias contornadas; unstable=true quando houve anomalia. null quando nada foi medido (resposta servida só do cache)"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / required

Previous value: -[
-  "source",
-  "source_url",
-  "data_vintage",
-  "retrieved_at",
-  "citation",
-  "license"
-]New value: +[
+  "source",
+  "source_url",
+  "data_vintage",
+  "retrieved_at",
+  "retrieval",
+  "citation",
+  "license"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond structured fields: it is a 'live GET against the public IBGE Localidades API' and returns a 'Markdown record,' which tells the agent about the data source and output format. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a public read-only API that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into clear sections (Features, Examples, Alternatives, Behavior). It is slightly longer than necessary because the 'Features' list restates code-length information already present in the schema, but the structure and routing guidance justify most of the length.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, behavior, and examples. The output schema handles return details, and annotations handle safety, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by providing concrete code examples (São Paulo state: codigo=35; city: codigo=3550308; district: codigo=355030805) that illustrate the digit-length conventions in practice, adding practical value beyond the schema's format description.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns details of a specific locality by IBGE code.' It further clarifies scope ('the full record of ONE locality you already have the code for') and explicitly names sibling alternatives (ibge_municipios, ibge_geocodigo), so an agent can distinguish it from the ~20 other ibge_* tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use a different tool: when you have a name and need the code, or when you want to decompose a code's structure, each mapped to a specific sibling (ibge_municipios, ibge_geocodigo). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternatives section with no ambiguity.

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

All IBGE Brasil MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.