Restituição de descontos indevidos no INSS (fraude associativa, códigos 280/304/310/378): soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas. Ressarcimento administrativo via acordo STF (ADPF 1.236).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral context by explaining this is an administrative reimbursement calculation that sums corrected installments, which helps the agent understand the tool's output nature beyond the annotations.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second adds the legal context. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does and when it applies.
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 establishes the legal context and core calculation, and annotations cover safety behavior. However, with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, it leaves gaps around how `indice` and `data_calculo` affect the calculation and what exactly is returned. Adequate for routing, but not fully complete 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, but it only indirectly references discounted installments and correction. It does not explain the meaning of the `indice` enum, the required structure of `descontos` items (competencia/valor), or the role of `data_calculo`. An agent would have to infer parameter semantics from schema structure alone.
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 operation — restitution of undue INSS discounts — and provides concrete identifying details: the fraud codes 280/304/310/378 and the STF ADPF 1.236 agreement. It states the calculation action ('soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas') and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like calculo_fgts, calculo_rmi, or calculo_revisional.
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 gives a clear usage context: administrative reimbursement of undue INSS discounts associated with specific codes and a specific legal framework. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the legal and code constraints are specific enough to guide an agent.
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.