Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brasil-data-mcp

brasil-data-mcp

by alanpcf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

consultar_ddd

List cities and state covered by a Brazilian DDD code using BrasilAPI.

Instructions

Lista as cidades atendidas por um código DDD brasileiro via BrasilAPI. Retorna em JSON: estado (UF) e lista de cidades que usam aquele DDD. Use quando o usuário perguntar de onde é um DDD, quais cidades um DDD cobre, ou descobrir o estado de um número de telefone. NÃO use para: validar número de telefone completo, descobrir DDD a partir de cidade (a operação só é DDD → cidades), ou consultar DDDs internacionais.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dddYesCódigo DDD brasileiro (2 dígitos). Aceita string ou número. Ex: 11 (São Paulo capital), 21 (Rio), 41 (Curitiba), 71 (Salvador).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description covers the read-only nature and return format. Minor missing details on potential errors or rate limits, but sufficient for an API 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main function and output, followed by usage rules. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format. Could mention external dependency on BrasilAPI availability, but overall adequate for a simple lookup.

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?

The only parameter 'ddd' has full schema description with examples. Description adds clarifications on accepted types (string/number) and example codes, beyond the 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 it lists cities by DDD code via BrasilAPI and returns JSON with state and cities. It is distinct from sibling tools like consultar_cep, which handle different data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (e.g., user asks about DDD coverage) and when not to (e.g., full phone validation, reverse lookup), providing clear boundaries.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools