Consulta de índice oficial: fator de correção acumulado entre duas datas (mês inicial excluído, mês final incluído — convenção BACEN/IBGE). Se valor informado, retorna o valor corrigido; se incluir_valores true, retorna as variações mensais publicadas (puxar os índices crus).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valor | No | ||
| indice | Yes | ||
| pro_rata | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| data_inicial | Yes | ||
| incluir_valores | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the exact month-inclusion rule (initial excluded, final included) and the two conditional behaviors (return corrected value if `valor` is passed; return monthly published variations if `incluir_valores` is true). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler; the core purpose and the date convention are front-loaded, and the optional behaviors are placed in a compact conditional sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value and edge-case information. It covers the main return modes but omits behavior when `data_final` is absent (it is not required) and omits `pro_rata`, leaving a meaningful gap for a 6-parameter calculation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the date range semantics and the purpose of `valor` and `incluir_valores`, but it does not explain `pro_rata`, the `NENHUM` enum value, or date formats. This is partial compensation with clear gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact operation ('consulta de índice oficial'), the computed result ('fator de correção acumulado'), and the date convention (initial month excluded, final month included). It also states the two optional output modes, which clearly separates it from the calculo_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context: use when an official BACEN/IBGE index correction factor between dates is needed, with explicit conditional use of `valor` and `incluir_valores`. It does not name exclusions or sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each calculo_* tool targets a distinct legal/financial area (rent, alimony, FGTS, criminal sentencing, etc.), and their descriptions cite specific statutes that make the purpose clear. The only mild ambiguity is that calculo_atualizar and calculo_indice both handle generic monetary correction, while some INSS/FGTS tools share 'refund plus correction' semantics, but the specialized names avoid serious confusion.
The 16 domain tools follow a consistent 'calculo_<topic>' snake_case pattern, but calculo_atualizar uses a verb where the rest use nouns. The six platform tools break the pattern entirely with short English names (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), resulting in two readable but distinct naming conventions.
At 22 tools, the set is in the heavy range, and while the 16 legal calculators each justify their place, the six unrelated MCP platform utilities bloat the count for a server named 'Atualização Monetária'. The breadth of the legal calculators makes this borderline rather than excessive, but the overall scope is less focused than a well-scoped 10-15 tool server.
The toolkit covers a remarkably wide set of Brazilian legal calculations: monetary correction, index factors, alimony, labor severance, FGTS, INSS refunds, bank contract revisions, criminal sentencing, prison progression, family division, retirement benefits, and contribution time. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone general-interest calculator and no OCR for FGTS statements yet, but agents can work around these with the generic tools.