mcp-brasilapi

by silasrm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

ibge__buscar_uf

Retrieve IBGE data for a Brazilian state (UF) by providing its acronym (e.g., SP) or IBGE code (e.g., 35).

Instructions

Busca os dados de uma UF a partir da sigla ou do código IBGE.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "ibge__buscar_uf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	Sigla da UF (ex.: "SP") ou código IBGE (ex.: "35").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only repeats the basic function without mentioning idempotency, error handling, or that it is a read-only lookup. It adds little value beyond the input schema.

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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently captures the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits details about what constitutes valid input and potential error states, which could be inferred but not explicitly stated.

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, with a clear explanation in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 searches for UF data using an abbreviation or IBGE code. It has a specific verb (busca) and resource (UF), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ibge__listar_ufs' which lists all UFs.

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 'ibge__listar_ufs'. The context of sibling tools implies usage when a specific code is available, but the description does not provide any usage hints or exclusions.

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