mcp-server-brasil

by vicgamelo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Cidades por DDD

consultar_ddd

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the Brazilian state and cities covered by a specific DDD area code to identify phone number coverage.

Instructions

UF e cidades atendidas por um DDD.

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": {
      "ddd": "<ddd>"
    },
    "name": "consultar_ddd"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ddd`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the return content already implied by its purpose: no behavior for invalid or unknown DDDs, no note on multiple UFs or empty results, no data source or currency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

There is zero filler and the key idea is front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification: a fragment rather than a sentence, with no room for the usage or format detail an agent needs.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a lookup keyed on a formatted code, the missing input-format guidance and invalid-input behavior leave a real gap for an agent composing the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'ddd' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It references DDD conceptually but never states the expected format (two-digit string such as '11'), whether leading zeros or punctuation are accepted, or what happens with a malformed code.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence 'UF e cidades atendidas por um DDD' makes clear that the tool resolves a DDD area code into a state (UF) and its covered cities, which is distinct from sibling lookups like consultar_cep or consultar_cnpj. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and the reader must infer that 'consultar_ddd' performs a lookup rather than, say, listing all DDDs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implicit 'you have a DDD and want its cities'. There is no mention of how this differs from listar_municipios, which plausibly covers overlapping ground, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server