Skip to main content
Glama
mauricio-cantu

brasil-api-mcp-server

get_postal_code_v1

Retrieve location data for any Brazilian address using its CEP postal code. This tool provides detailed address information including street, neighborhood, city, and state from the BrasilAPI database.

Instructions

Get a location data given a CEP (postal code).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cepYesThe CEP to query

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous handler function that queries the Brasil API for CEP data, formats the result using prettifyJson, and returns it as McpTextContent, or throws an error on failure.
    handler: async ({ cep }) => {
      try {
        const result = await brasilApiClient.cepV1.getBy(cep);
        const content: McpTextContent = {
          type: "text",
          text: `CEP found:\n${prettifyJson(result.data)}`,
        };
        return {
          content: [content],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        console.error(error);
        throw new Error(`Failed to fetch cep ${cep}`);
      }
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter 'cep' as a string.
    const getCepToolParams = {
      cep: z.string().describe("The CEP to query"),
    };
  • src/index.ts:30-41 (registration)
    The tool getCepTool ("get_postal_code_v1") is included in the tools array and registered to the MCP server via registerTool.
    const tools = [
      getCepTool,
      getCepV2Tool,
      getBookByISBNTool,
      getCNPJTool,
      getAllBanksTool,
      getBankByCodeTool,
    ];
    
    tools.forEach((tool) => {
      registerTool(server, tool);
    });
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves location data but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a location data given a CEP (postal code).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, the phrasing 'a location data' is slightly awkward grammatically, which detracts from perfect clarity, but it remains concise and to the point.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'location data' includes, potential errors, or how it differs from 'get_postal_code_v2'. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context is needed to fully understand its operation and limitations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'cep' parameter documented as 'The CEP to query.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that CEP is a postal code. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a location data given a CEP (postal code).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('location data'), and input ('CEP'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'get_postal_code_v2', which slightly reduces clarity about when to use this version versus the other.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_postal_code_v2' or explain any differences, such as version-specific features or deprecation status. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mauricio-cantu/brasil-api-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server