list_statesList all 27 Brazilian states (UFs) with id, 2-letter sigla, name, and region (e.g. "SP" → São Paulo, Sudeste). Useful for resolving state names/codes before querying municipalities or regional data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderBy | No | Sort field: "nome" or "id" (default "nome"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "orderBy": "nome"
+ },
+ {
+ "orderBy": "id"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific output details (fields and example) and confirms the fixed set of 27 states, complementing annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core action and output, followed by usage hint. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what it returns and its purpose. It is complete 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes the single parameter 'orderBy' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'states', specifying it lists all 27 Brazilian states with fields (id, sigla, name, region) and gives an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_municipalities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it is useful for resolving state names/codes before querying municipalities or regional data, providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.