Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brdata-mcp

brdata-mcp

by thomenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Batch-validate Brazilian identifiers

validate_documents

Validate up to 100 Brazilian identifiers including CPF, CNPJ, PIS, license plates, and Pix keys.

Instructions

Validate up to 100 Brazilian identifiers: CPF, CNPJ (incl. alphanumeric), PIS, license plates, Pix keys. Paid ($0.002).

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": {
      "documents": "<documents>"
    },
    "name": "validate_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentsYesDocuments to validate (max 100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; the description discloses cost ($0.002) and batch size (up to 100). It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, authentication, or return format. Adequate but could be expanded.

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?

Single sentence with verb, scope, types, and cost. No extraneous words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return values. It does not. Also lacks prerequisites or error handling. However, parameter is well-defined. Adequate but incomplete.

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% with clear parameter structure. The description adds the alphanumeric CNPJ detail and cost, which is helpful but not extensive. Score is baseline 3 as description adds marginal value beyond schema.

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 action (validate), the resource (Brazilian identifiers), and lists specific types (CPF, CNPJ, PIS, license plates, Pix keys). It distinguishes from sibling 'validate_cnpj' by emphasizing batch and multiple 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?

The description mentions batch size and cost but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus single-type alternatives like validate_cnpj. Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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