Tempo de contribuição (CNIS): soma os vínculos contando concomitância uma vez e converte atividade especial em comum (fatores EC 103/2019, só até 13/11/2019). Retorna tempo total e se atinge o tempo antigo (35H/30M).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| vinculos | 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral details: concurrent vínculos are counted once, special activity conversion is limited to 13/11/2019, and the output indicates both total time and whether the old-time threshold is reached. No contradiction with 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 tight sentences, front-loading the domain and then providing the algorithm and outputs. There is no filler, and every clause adds operational information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values (total time and whether the old threshold is reached) and covers the key algorithm cases: concurrency, special activity conversion, date cutoff, and sex-specific thresholds. It is slightly incomplete on parameter formatting and output units, but the core behavior is well covered.
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 explains vínculos conceptually and hints at sex via 35H/30M, but it does not explain the `inicio`, `fim`, or `tipo` fields of the vínculos items, the enum meanings, or the expected date format. This is insufficient parameter guidance.
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 resource ('Tempo de contribuição (CNIS)') and states concrete operations: summing vínculos, counting concurrent periods once, and converting special activity to common using EC 103/2019 factors. It also states what the tool returns, making its purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling calculators.
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 implies the use case through CNIS, vínculos, and the 35H/30M old-time threshold, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over a sibling calculator or gives exclusions/prerequisites. Usage context is present but only implied.
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.