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?
The description discloses the core behavior beyond the annotations: it computes a completion percentage using stated factors, discounts remição and detração, and returns a date. Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and nothing in the description contradicts them.
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 that packs legal basis, formula variables, discounting behavior, and return value with no filler. Every clause contributes.
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 calculator with no output schema, the description covers the legal context, the main input factors, the discounting logic, and the output. It leaves minor gaps such as exact required-parameter mapping and return structure, but annotations cover the safety profile, making the overall guidance sufficient.
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 semantic burden. It compensates by mapping domain concepts to the parameters (primário/reincidente maps to reincidente, comum/hediondo to hediondo, violência/resultado morte to violencia/resultado_morte, trabalho/estudo to hours/days worked, detração to dias_detracao). It does not explicitly state units or date formats, but the conceptual mapping is strong.
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 computation ('Progressão de regime'), cites the controlling legal provisions (LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019), and enumerates the factors that distinguish it from sibling calculators (recidivism, heinous crime, violence/death). It also states the output (progressão date), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does.
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-citation-heavy description makes the intended use clear: calculating Brazilian prison regime progression. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative (e.g., calculo_dosimetria), so it lacks the explicit routing of the strongest definitions.
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.
The calculo_* tools are largely distinct by legal scenario, but several overlap in mechanics—calculo_atualizar, calculo_pensao, calculo_restituicao_inss, and calculo_rmc_rcc all apply correction and interest to overdue amounts. Platform tools also blur boundaries: authenticate/connect both deal with credentials, and marketplace/toolkit_info both describe installation state.
The 16 calculation tools consistently follow a calculo_<domain> snake_case pattern, which is good. However, the 6 platform tools break the convention with single verbs/nouns (connect, marketplace, authenticate) and mixed forms (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating two inconsistent naming styles within one server.
22 tools is at the high end of reasonable for a legal-calculation suite, but the server name 'Cálculo de FGTS' suggests a much narrower scope. The platform-management tools add bulk and make the set feel broader and heavier than the name implies.
As a Brazilian legal calculation toolkit, the coverage is strong: labor, pension, criminal sentencing, family, banking, FGTS, and monetary correction are all represented. Minor gaps exist—such as no OCR extraction for FGTS statements and no standalone interest-only calculation—but the core calculation workflows are not dead-ended.