Aluguéis em atraso (Lei 8.245/91): reajusta o aluguel ao longo do contrato pelo índice, corrige cada mês atrasado até hoje, aplica juros de mora (1% a.m.) e multa moratória. Retorna detalhamento por mês + total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| juros | No | ||
| multa | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | Yes | ||
| aluguel_inicial | Yes | ||
| inicio_contrato | Yes | ||
| periodicidade_meses | 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 readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful procedural detail: it reajusta by index, corrects each overdue month, applies 1% monthly interest and a late fine, and returns a monthly breakdown plus total. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the legal context and calculation logic, the second states the return structure. No filler or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the explanation covers the core workflow and output but omits input formats, optional parameter behavior, and enum choices. It is adequate for a familiar domain but not fully self-sufficient for an agent.
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 implicitly explains core inputs like aluguel_inicial, inicio_contrato, inicio_atraso, and fim_atraso, and mentions indice, juros, and multa conceptually. However, it leaves optional parameters (data_calculo, periodicidade_meses) and the enum values for indice undocumented, so an agent cannot fully determine what to supply for all 9 parameters.
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 states a clear, specific operation: calculating overdue rent adjustments under Lei 8.245/91, including index-based correction, mora interest, and fine. It also states the output format (per-month breakdown plus total), which fully distinguishes this tool from sibling calculation tools like calculo_revisional or calculo_indice.
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: overdue rent under a specific Brazilian law. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the legal and domain-specific framing makes it evident when this tool applies.
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 16 calculation tools are each tied to a distinct legal scenario (rent, criminal sentencing, FGTS, labor severance, etc.), so misselection is unlikely. However, the platform meta-tools overlap: connect, toolkit_info, and authenticate all deal with connection/auth state, and marketplace's list_tools/describe overlaps with toolkit_info.
The legal calculators use a consistent calculo_<domain> prefix, which is highly predictable. But the six meta-tools use standalone English names (connect, marketplace, report_bug) and the prefix itself mixes nouns (calculo_aluguel) with a verb (calculo_atualizar), so the overall convention is not uniform.
22 tools is on the heavy side for a server claiming to be about 'juros e multa', especially since six tools are unrelated platform administration features. The 16 legal calculators are arguably well-scoped, but the meta-tool wrapper inflates the count and blurs the server's purpose.
The legal calculation surface is unusually broad: civil, criminal, labor, social security, banking, and family law are all represented, and the calculo_atualizar tool provides the generic debt-update/interest/fee calculation implied by the server name. Minor gaps exist—there is no dedicated simple-interest-only calculator or court-fees/custas calculator—but no obvious dead-end workflows remain.