mcp-brasilapi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tuss__autocomplete

Autocomplete TUSS medical procedure terms for UI forms and AI agents. Search by query, name, or code to get suggestions.

Instructions

Autocomplete de termos TUSS para preenchimento em UIs/agentes.

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": "tuss__autocomplete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Termo de busca.
`name`	No	Filtra por nome.
`tuss`	No	Filtra por código.
`limit`	No	Limite de sugestões (default 10).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the tool's purpose without describing behavior such as query length requirements, matching logic, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not described, and the description adds no behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple autocomplete tool, though it could benefit from slight expansion to include usage context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the presence of sibling tools for searching and listing TUSS terms, the description lacks contextual completeness by not differentiating usage scenarios. It does not address when to use autocomplete versus other TUSS tools, and it omits behavioral specifics that would help the agent decide. The output schema exists, but the description fails to leverage it for completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 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 clearly states it is an autocomplete tool for TUSS terms intended for UI/agent filling. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like tuss__buscar and tuss__listar, which perform search and listing operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., tuss__buscar, tuss__pesquisar). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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