brasil-mcp-essentials

Official

by brasil-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

generate_pix_brcode

Generate static PIX BR Codes for Brazilian payments. Supports QR code formats: none, PNG, SVG, or both.

Instructions

Gera BR Code PIX estático. qr_format: 'none' | 'png' | 'svg' | 'both'.

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": {
      "chave": "<chave>",
      "nome_beneficiario": "<nome_beneficiario>",
      "cidade": "<cidade>"
    },
    "name": "generate_pix_brcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`txid`	No
`chave`	Yes
`valor`	No
`cidade`	Yes
`descricao`	No
`qr_format`	No	none
`nome_beneficiario`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists qr_format options but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is safe (e.g., read-only). This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is succinct (one sentence), but it is front-loaded with the purpose and a parameter hint. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing key details. It is not overly verbose but could be better structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of annotations and the presence of 7 parameters with no schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's behavior, prerequisites, or return value context, even though an output schema exists. The tool is a generation tool among validation siblings, but that context is not leveraged.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only explains the 'qr_format' parameter. The other six parameters (chave, nome_beneficiario, cidade, txid, valor, descricao) are not described, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 generates a static PIX BR Code, using the verb 'gera' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'parse_pix_brcode' which handles parsing, not generation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to parse a BR code instead. No context or exclusion criteria are given.

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