mcp-brasil

Consultar DDD

consultar_ddd

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the Brazilian state (UF) and list of cities served by a two-digit DDD area code for location lookup and address validation.

Instructions

Retorna a UF e a lista de cidades atendidas por um código DDD.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ddd": "<ddd>"
    },
    "name": "consultar_ddd"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ddd`	Yes	Código DDD de 2 dígitos, ex.: 11

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what is returned (UF plus a city list), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about behavior on invalid or unassigned DDDs, error handling, or result size.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the return values and the input in one pass. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, and the return-value sentence compensates for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is behavior on invalid or unassigned DDD codes, which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with type and an example ('11'). The description only restates that the parameter is a DDD code, adding no format or validation nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retorna') with two concrete outputs (UF and list of cities) and a well-defined input resource (código DDD), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like consultar_cep or consultar_cnpj that key on different identifiers. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting an alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name and the single required parameter.

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

Deploy Server