Pensão alimentícia em atraso (art. 528 CPC): por mês do período calcula o devido (% do salário mínimo do mês, valor fixo ou % da remuneração), subtrai pagamentos e aplica correção (INPC) + juros 1% a.m. desde cada vencimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forma | Yes | ||
| juros | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| pagamentos | No | ||
| referencia | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| remuneracoes | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | Yes |
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?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds the meaningful calculation behavior: per-month due amount across three modes, subtraction of payments, INPC correction, and 1% monthly interest from each maturity. It does not contradict any annotation.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence; every clause maps to a schema parameter or behavioral rule. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a 9-parameter legal calculator with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm and most inputs. It falls short only on an explicit definition of 'referencia' and the return shape, but the tool's calculation purpose is largely inferable.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description maps the main parameters: the three 'forma' modes, pagamentos, remuneracoes, juros/indice, and the arrears period. It leaves 'referencia' and 'data_calculo' implicit and does not specify date formats.
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 a specific resource (alimony in arrears, art. 528 CPC) and a concrete verb (calcula) with the full algorithm. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as calculo_aluguel or calculo_fgts.
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?
The legal context and subject matter ('Pensão alimentícia em atraso') make the intended use case explicit. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but against the sibling list the selection is unambiguous.
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.