mcp-brasil

call_tool

Execute a specific tool by providing its name and arguments to access Brazilian public data from over 200 tools across 27 APIs.

Instructions

Call a tool by name with the given arguments.

Use this to execute tools discovered via search_tools.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "call_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The name of the tool to call
`arguments`	No	Arguments to pass to the tool

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.14.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the schema without describing side effects, return values, error conditions, or the fact that calling arbitrary tools may have destructive consequences. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have mentioned that the tool returns the called tool's output or that invalid names will error. The core functionality is clear, but some behavioral expectations are missing, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds little beyond the schema, repeating 'by name with the given arguments' without explaining how arguments map to the called tool's parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Call a tool by name with the given arguments,' which specifies the verb and resource. It also differentiates from search_tools by noting the tool is for executing discovered tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling executar_lote, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to execute tools discovered via search_tools.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server