Revisional de contrato bancário: recalcula o financiamento pela taxa média de mercado do BACEN (busca ao vivo por modalidade+mês) e apura o excedente por parcela (Price ou SAC). A taxa média é referência, não teto (STJ).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sistema | No | ||
| modalidade | No | ||
| num_parcelas | Yes | ||
| parcela_paga | Yes | ||
| data_contrato | No | ||
| taxa_bacen_am | No | ||
| valor_financiado | Yes | ||
| taxa_contratada_am | 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. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it performs a live BACEN lookup by modality and month, and it clarifies that the average rate is a reference, not a cap (STJ). This is useful operational and legal context not available from annotations alone.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the domain and core action, then gives the essential legal caveat about the reference rate. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description conveys the main purpose, the output concept (excesso por parcela), and the legal status of the rate. But with no output schema and 8 parameters, it leaves ambiguity about how optional inputs like modalidade and data_contrato affect the live BACEN lookup, and whether taxa_bacen_am overrides the live search. These are material gaps for correct invocation.
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 must compensate. It partially does: 'modalidade+mês' explains modalidade and data_contrato, 'Price ou SAC' explains the sistema enum, and 'taxa média' relates to taxa_bacen_am. However, it does not explicitly map the required parameters valor_financiado, num_parcelas, taxa_contratada_am, and parcela_paga, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with 8 parameters.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a bank contract revisional calculation that recalculates financing using BACEN's average market rate and computes the excess per installment under Price or SAC. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools covering FGTS, trabalhista, aluguel, etc.
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 states an explicit use case: revisional de contrato bancário, recalculating a loan based on the BACEN average rate and computing excess per installment. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative sibling tools, but the domain and calculation type are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.