mcp-brasilapi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cep__buscar_v2

Look up a Brazilian postal code (CEP) to retrieve address details along with geolocation data, including latitude, longitude, and timezone.

Instructions

Busca um CEP incluindo geolocalização (latitude/longitude e timezone).

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": {
      "cep": "<cep>"
    },
    "name": "cep__buscar_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cep`	Yes	CEP a ser consultado, ex.: "01310930" ou "01310-930".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 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 full burden. It discloses the main behavior (search + geolocation) but does not mention any limitations, rate limits, or data source. The output schema covers return format, leaving minimal 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the unique aspect (geolocation) and the core purpose, making it complete for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the parameter description already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches for a CEP (Brazilian postal code) and includes geolocation data (latitude/longitude and timezone), distinguishing it from the sibling tool cep__buscar which likely lacks geolocation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use when geolocation is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation.

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