Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021): % da renda comprometida, mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável), renda disponível e capacidade de pagamento de um plano de até 5 anos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dividas | Yes | ||
| prazo_meses | No | ||
| renda_liquida | Yes | ||
| minimo_existencial | 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 establish read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context about the computed metrics: committed income percentage, R$600 parameterizable minimum existential, available income, and payment capacity. It does not disclose formulas, default values beyond R$600, or exactly how the 5-year plan is capped, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.
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 legal subject; each clause adds a distinct metric or parameter context. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but it contains no wasted words.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only summarizes outputs at a high level. Given a required debt array and no parameter documentation, the definition is not detailed enough for a reliable first call, even though tool selection is straightforward.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain inputs like renda_liquida, dividas, and prazo_meses, but it only hints at income and a 5-year plan. It does not clarify the debt structure fields (saldo, parcela, credor) or required conditions, leaving an agent to infer most parameter semantics from variable names 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 the specific legal subject ('Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021)') and enumerates the computed outputs: committed income percentage, minimum existential, available income, and payment capacity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools such as calculo_aluguel or calculo_trabalhista, although it lacks an explicit verb like 'calcula'.
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 and the concepts of mínimo existencial and payment capacity imply use for Brazilian over-indebtedness cases under Lei 14.181/2021. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.
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.