Skip to main content
Glama

IBGE Brasil MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Municípios do Brasil

ibge_municipios
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Brazilian municipalities from IBGE.

Features:

  • List municipalities by state (using state abbreviation)

  • List all municipalities in Brazil (5,570 municipalities)

  • Search by municipality name

  • Returns 7-digit IBGE code

Examples:

  • São Paulo municipalities: uf="SP"

  • Search by name: busca="Campinas"

  • MG municipalities containing "Belo": uf="MG", busca="Belo"

Use a different tool when:

  • Resolve/decode a code at any level (region, state, district), not just municipalities → ibge_geocodigo

  • Full details/hierarchy of one locality by code → ibge_localidade

  • Neighboring municipalities → ibge_vizinhos

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoEstado por sigla (SP), nome (São Paulo) ou código IBGE (35). Se não informado, retorna todos os municípios do Brasil.
buscaNoTermo para buscar no nome do município
limiteNoNúmero máximo de resultados (padrão: 100, máximo: 5570)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoUF informada no filtro (como recebida na entrada)
buscaNoTermo de busca aplicado ao nome do município
totalYesTotal de municípios encontrados antes do limite
municipiosYesLista de municípios retornados (após filtro e limite)
provenanceYesBloco de proveniência (contrato v1.1): fonte, URL, período, extração, diagnóstico de origem e licença
attributionYesURLs canônicas das fontes desta resposta (lista de atribuição)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observed

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 "read-only and idempotent" is partly restating structured data. It does add genuine context beyond the annotations: the tool issues a live GET against the public IBGE Localidades API and returns a Markdown table, which tells the agent about latency exposure and output shape. No permission or rate-limit detail is given, but that is minor for a public read API.

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 one-line purpose, then layered features, examples, and exclusions in scannable blocks. Structure is excellent, though the "Features" bullets and "Examples" partially restate the same facts (state filtering appears in both), which is a small amount of redundancy rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is not obligated to explain return values. It still covers scope, all three parameters' intent, sibling routing, data source, and output format — nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by showing that uf and busca compose (uf="MG", busca="Belo") and by confirming that omitting uf returns the full national list, which the schema states but the examples reinforce. It says nothing about the limite/slicing parameter, leaving that entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists Brazilian municipalities from IBGE") and immediately enumerates the concrete capabilities: filter by state, list all 5,570, search by name. The description also differentiates itself from ibge_geocodigo, ibge_localidade, and ibge_vizinhos, so an agent can place it against siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Provides three worked invocation examples mapping intent to parameters (uf="SP", busca="Campinas", uf="MG"+busca="Belo"), plus an explicit "Use a different tool when" block that names three alternatives and the exact condition that selects each. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all covered.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources