RMC/RCC — reserva de margem consignável de cartão (INSS, códigos 217/268): limites de 5% e restituição corrigida dos descontos. Tese: cartão rotativo vendido como consignado que nunca amortiza.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| beneficio_mensal | 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 signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the 5% limit and corrected restitution of discounts, but it does not disclose output shape, error behavior, or assumptions, so it only modestly extends the annotation data.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core RMC/RCC scope and key quantitative thresholds. The legal thesis sentence adds useful context without being repetitive, so each part 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?
For a financial/legal calculation with five parameters, no output schema, and zero per-parameter documentation, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. It sets the domain but does not clarify input semantics, especially the index enum, nor how the 5% and restitution rules are applied.
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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. It indirectly relates to 'descontos' and to 'RMC/RCC' via `tipo`, but leaves `indice`, `data_calculo`, and `beneficio_mensal` semantically undocumented, which is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 RMC/RCC consignable-margin domain, cites INSS codes 217/268, and mentions the 5% limit, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools. However, it never states an explicit verb such as 'calculates' or 'returns'; it is a noun-phrase description of the subject matter, so it falls short of a 5.
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 domain context implies when to use this tool: for RMC/RCC card margin calculations tied to INSS and the revolving-card thesis. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.