mcp-brasilapi

by silasrm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

ddd__buscar

Get the Brazilian state and list of cities that use a given DDD area code.

Instructions

Retorna o estado (UF) e a lista de cidades que usam um DDD.

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": {
      "ddd": "<ddd>"
    },
    "name": "ddd__buscar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ddd`	Yes	Código DDD de 2 dígitos (ex.: 11).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (state and cities list) without mentioning any traits like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or what happens if the DDD is invalid. For a simple read operation, this is minimal transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential operation. There is no extraneous text; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (single integer parameter, output schema exists) the description is adequate but lacks context about typical use cases, data freshness, or the DDD system. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema, but some additional context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already specifies 'Código DDD de 2 dígitos (ex.: 11).' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retorna' (returns) and identifies the resource: estado (state) and lista de cidades (list of cities) for a given DDD. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which handle other Brazilian data like banks, CEP, CNPJ, etc.

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 when to use (when needing state and cities for a DDD) but does not provide explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all different lookups, it's clear this is the dedicated DDD tool, but no when-not-to or edge-case guidance is provided.

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