Progressão de regime (LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019): percentual de cumprimento por primário/reincidente × comum/hediondo × violência/resultado morte, descontando remição (trabalho/estudo) e detração, e retorna a data de progressão.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hediondo | No | ||
| pena_anos | Yes | ||
| violencia | No | ||
| reincidente | No | ||
| horas_estudo | No | ||
| dias_detracao | No | ||
| resultado_morte | No | ||
| dias_trabalhados | No | ||
| inicio_cumprimento | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs mathematical computation on multiple factors, discounts remição (work/study) and detração, and returns a date. However, it does not disclose the exact legal fraction percentages applied, rounding rules, or how missing optional factors are treated.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that packs a lot of legal and computational detail without padding. It front-loads the core purpose (progressão de regime) and the legal basis. It loses one point because the technical terms and symbols are not separated (e.g., ×) and the sentence is long enough that an agent might need to parse carefully.
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 computational tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the main inputs and the output type (date). Given annotations declare it safe and idempotent, and the sibling list makes the domain clear, this is mostly complete. Missing details are the exact legal percentage table and the date format, but those are arguably algorithmic details rather than invocation-critical.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining 9 parameters. The description does mention key concepts (primário/reincidente, comum/hediondo, violência/morte, remição, detração), which map to the boolean and numeric parameters (reincidente, hediondo, violencia, resultado_morte, horas_estudo, dias_trabalhados). However, it does not explain the date format for inicio_cumprimento or the unit interpretation of pena_anos (decimal years).
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 identifies the specific legal basis (LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019), the exact computation factors (primário/reincidente, comum/hediondo, violência/morte, remição, detração), and the output (data de progressão). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools, which cover unrelated domains like aluguel, FGTS, and pensão. The verb is implicit ('calcula') but the resource and scope are precise.
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 description implies the tool is for criminal penalty progression calculations, which is evident from the legal citation and factors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like calculo_dosimetria (which likely covers sentence calculation) or how to decide between them. There is no exclusionary language or 'use instead' guidance.
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.