mcp-brasilapi

by silasrm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

registrobr__consultar

Check the registration status and availability of any .br domain through Registro.br data.

Instructions

Avalia o status de um domínio .br junto ao Registro.br.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "registrobr__consultar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domínio a verificar (ex.: "exemplo.com.br").

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 behavior. It only says it 'checks status' without specifying what that entails (e.g., availability, registration details, or any side effects). There is no information on read-only nature, rate limits, or external API calls.

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, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on possible status values, error conditions, or prerequisites like domain format validation, leaving some gaps in context.

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 single parameter 'domain' is described with a clear example format. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value with the example but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides.

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 checks the status of a .br domain with Registro.br. The verb 'avaliar' and resource 'domínio .br' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which cover other Brazilian data services 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when checking .br domain status. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context is clear given the tool's narrow focus and distinct sibling tools.

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