brasil-mcp-essentials

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lookup_banco_febraban

Look up Brazilian bank details by 3-digit FEBRABAN code. Uses BrasilAPI to access over 200 banks with cached results for 7 days.

Instructions

Consulta banco brasileiro por código FEBRABAN (3 dígitos) via BrasilAPI (online). Cobre 200+ bancos. Cacheado 7 dias.

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": {
      "codigo": "<codigo>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_banco_febraban"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`codigo`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'online' and 'Cacheado 7 dias', adding caching and network dependency details. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or idempotency, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, coverage, and caching. No wasted words; the key details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the input semantics, source, and caching policy. It does not describe output, but the output schema handles that. It is mostly complete, though missing error context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'codigo' parameter, but the description adds 'código FEBRABAN (3 dígitos)' and 'Cobre 200+ bancos', clarifying the format and scope. This compensates well for the schema deficiency.

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 specifies 'Consulta banco brasileiro por código FEBRABAN (3 dígitos)', clearly defining the action (consult), resource (Brazilian bank), and unique identifier (Febraban code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like CEP lookups.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the name and context imply it is for bank code lookups, explicit guidance is absent.

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