mcp-brasilapi

by silasrm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

cptec__listar_cidades

Lists all available cities from CPTEC for weather forecasts. Returns city IDs and names.

Instructions

Lista as localidades (cidades) disponíveis no CPTEC.

Returns: Lista de cidades com id e nome (usado nas previsões).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cptec__listar_cidades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of cities with 'id' and 'nome', but does not mention it is read-only, any limitations, or side effects. For a simple listing, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose and includes a return format note. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is an output schema (indicated), the description sufficiently explains the return fields. Combined with zero parameters, the description is complete for this simple listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 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 the tool lists available cities in CPTEC, using a specific verb ('lista') and resource ('localidades'). It distinguishes from sibling 'cptec__buscar_cidade' (search) by implying this is a full listing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cptec__buscar_cidade. The context of sibling names provides implicit differentiation, but the description itself lacks usage instructions.

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