Skip to main content
Glama
sucorrea

ViaCEP Brasil MCP Server

by sucorrea
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are inverse operations: one fetches an address from a CEP, the other fetches CEPs from an address. Their purposes are clearly distinct and complementary, leaving no ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same Portuguese pattern 'buscar_X_por_Y' (buscar_endereco_por_cep and buscar_cep_por_endereco), making the naming perfectly consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the count is borderline but appropriate for the narrow domain of CEP lookup. Each tool covers one direction of the search, so no tool feels superfluous.

    Completeness5/5

    The server covers the two core operations of the ViaCEP service: address-by-CEP and CEP-by-address. This fully addresses the domain's primary use cases, with no obvious gaps.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the result cap ('Retorna até 50 CEPs') and the ordering ('ordenados pela proximidade do nome do logradouro'). It does not mention error behavior, edge cases, or any authentication needs, but for a simple search tool, this is acceptable.

    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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

    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?

    For a simple 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the inputs, the output cap, ordering, and when to use it. It does not detail the exact output structure, but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity.

    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 baseline is 3. The description paraphrases each parameter (UF, cidade, logradouro) but does not add meaningful new information beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the Brazilian context but nothing more.

    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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pesquisa CEPs brasileiros a partir de informações de endereço'. It explicitly lists the three required inputs (UF, cidade, logradouro) and the output (até 50 CEPs). Since the sibling tool does the reverse (CEP -> endereço), this description clearly distinguishes itself.

    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 final sentence provides explicit guidance: 'Útil quando o CEP não é conhecido mas o endereço sim.' This tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (buscar_endereco_por_cep), relying on the sibling name for inference, which is a minor gap.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields and the flexible CEP format, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid CEP), dependencies (e.g., external service), or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation. For such a simple query tool, some of this is implied, but the description could be more transparent about failure behavior.

    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 long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and return fields, and the second specifying the input format. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

    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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, input format, and the fields returned, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not address error cases, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward lookup tool.

    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 fully documents the 'cep' parameter, including format requirements and examples. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning. Therefore, the parameter semantics add no value beyond the schema, warranting the 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 the tool's function: consulting complete Brazilian address information from a CEP. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'endereço brasileiro a partir do CEP' are specific, and the listed return fields (logradouro, bairro, cidade, etc.) further clarify the scope. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool (buscar_cep_por_endereco) by emphasizing the direction: from CEP to address.

    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 that this tool should be used when you have a CEP and need the full address. It clearly states the input format (with/without hyphen), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the sibling tool's name provides clear differentiation, and the context is unambiguous.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

viacep-brasil-mcpserver MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

viacep-brasil-mcpserver MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sucorrea/viacep-brasil-mcpserver'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server