brasil-data-mcp

consultar_municipios

Retrieve all municipalities of a Brazilian state with names and 7-digit IBGE codes. Use to get the official list or codes for a given state.

Instructions

Lista todos os municípios de uma UF brasileira com nome e código IBGE de 7 dígitos, via BrasilAPI. Retorna em JSON um array de {nome, codigo_ibge}. Atenção: estados grandes retornam listas longas (SP tem 645 municípios, ~30KB) — prefira usar só quando precisar da lista ou do código de um município. Use quando o usuário precisar do código IBGE de um município ou listar as cidades de um estado. NÃO use para: buscar um município por nome no país inteiro (a API só filtra por UF — se souber o estado, consulte-o), endereços/CEP (use consultar_cep), ou dados populacionais.

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": {
      "uf": "<uf>"
    },
    "name": "consultar_municipios"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uf`	Yes	Sigla da unidade federativa, 2 letras, case-insensitive. Ex: 'SP', 'rj', 'DF'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries behavioral disclosure. It warns about long lists for large states (SP: 645 items, ~30KB) and specifies return format (JSON array). Could mention error behavior or rate limits, but current info is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is moderately concise with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed (e.g., 'Prefira usar...' and 'Use quando...' are similar).

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description is comprehensive: covers purpose, input format, output structure, size warning, and exclusions. No gaps remain for competent use.

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?

Only one parameter 'uf' with schema covering 100% (2-letter state code). Description doesn't add extra meaning beyond schema, but schema is clear. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists municipalities by UF, providing name and 7-digit IBGE code. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying scope (list all) and not for other lookups like CEP or population.

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 (need IBGE code or list cities) and when not to (country-wide name search, address/CEP, population). Recommends alternative tool 'consultar_cep' for addresses.

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

Deploy Server