ibge-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (decode/search) and provides code structure details, but it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with partial/invalid inputs. The examples help but don't cover all behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Features, Code structure, Examples) and uses bullet points efficiently. However, the 'Features' section partially repeats information from the opening sentence, and some details could be more streamlined. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about operations and examples. However, it lacks information about return formats (what the output looks like), error conditions, and how to interpret results beyond the code structure. Given the complexity of IBGE code mappings, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the code structure (1-9 digits mapping to regions/states/municipalities/districts) and providing usage examples, but it doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's dual purpose: 'Decodes IBGE codes or searches codes by locality name.' It specifies the exact operations (decode region/state/municipality/district codes and search by name) and distinguishes itself from siblings like ibge_cidades, ibge_estados, and ibge_localidade by focusing on code-name mapping rather than broader geographic data.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool through examples (e.g., 'Decode municipality: codigo="3550308"' and 'Search by name: nome="São Paulo"'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like ibge_cidades for city-specific data or ibge_estados for state-level information. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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