brasil-data-mcp

consultar_cep

Look up a complete Brazilian address from any CEP code. Returns state, city, neighborhood, street, and optionally coordinates.

Instructions

Consulta endereço completo a partir de um CEP brasileiro via BrasilAPI v2 (agrega ViaCEP, Postmon e outros provedores com fallback automático). Retorna em JSON: estado (UF), cidade, bairro, logradouro e, quando disponível, coordenadas geográficas. Use quando o usuário pedir o endereço de um CEP, validar um CEP, ou descobrir cidade/UF a partir de um CEP. NÃO use para: códigos postais de outros países, descobrir CEP a partir de endereço (a operação é só CEP → endereço, não inversa). Aceita CEP com ou sem hífen.

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": {
      "cep": "<cep>"
    },
    "name": "consultar_cep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cep`	Yes	CEP brasileiro com ou sem hífen. Aceita '01310-100' ou '01310100'. Deve ter 8 dígitos.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of multiple providers with automatic fallback, return fields including coordinates, and input format. Lacks specifics on error handling but sufficient for a simple lookup.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, input format, and return fields. Complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cep'. The description adds value by clarifying acceptable formats (with or without hyphen, 8 digits), which is not in schema. Provides usage guidance beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool consults full addresses from Brazilian CEPs via BrasilAPI v2, with multiple providers and fallback. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CEPs, not other postal codes.

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?

The description explicitly advises when to use: for address lookup, validation, or discovering city/state from a CEP. It also clearly states when not to use: for non-Brazilian codes or reverse lookup.

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

Deploy Server