Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brdata-mcp

brdata-mcp

by thomenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Decode boleto digitable line

decode_boleto

Extract bank, amount, due date, and validity from a Brazilian boleto digitable line. Paid $0.005 per decode.

Instructions

Decode a Brazilian boleto linha digitável (47 or 48 digits): bank, amount, due date, validity. Paid ($0.005).

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": {
      "digitable_line": "<digitable_line>"
    },
    "name": "decode_boleto"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
digitable_lineYesBoleto digitable line (47 or 48 digits).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Mentions paid cost ($0.005) which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, or other side effects.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, extracted fields, and cost. Lacks any waste, but could be slightly improved by mentioning output format or errors.

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 no output schema, the description lists returned fields, which is helpful. However, it omits details on response format, error conditions, or interaction with other tools.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description without adding new semantic information about the digitable line beyond what is already provided.

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?

Clearly states the tool decodes a Brazilian boleto digitable line and lists extracted fields (bank, amount, due date, validity). Distinguishes from siblings that handle different document types.

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 when/when-not guidance, but the context (sibling tools with different purposes) implies this is for boleto lines only. Lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools