brasil-mcp-essentials

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

parse_pix_brcode

Parse an EMV BR Code PIX string to extract payment details such as key, beneficiary, amount, transaction ID, and description.

Instructions

Parse BR Code PIX (string EMV). Retorna chave, beneficiário, valor, txid, descrição.

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "parse_pix_brcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a parse operation, behavior is mostly implied.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences front-loading the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing input and output) could improve readability.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the input (EMV string) and the output fields. However, it lacks examples or validation details that would fully prepare the agent.

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?

The single parameter 'value' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds that it is a 'string EMV', clarifying the input type, but lacks details on format, length, or examples. This provides basic meaning but insufficient for full understanding.

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 parses a Pix BR code (EMV string) and lists the returned fields: key, beneficiary, amount, txid, description. It distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'generate_pix_brcode' which performs the opposite operation.

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 implies usage for parsing Pix codes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'generate_pix_brcode'. No when-not or selection guidance is provided.

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