Correção do FGTS (tese TR → INPC/IPCA-E, STF): por depósito calcula a diferença entre corrigir pelo índice de inflação vs pela TR, com juros de 3% a.a. da conta. Aceita depósitos manuais (ou, futuramente, extrato OCR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indice | No | ||
| depositos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| incluir_juros_3aa | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it works per deposit, includes 3% a.a. interest, and accepts manual deposits, with OCR extraction only as a future capability.
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: it states the purpose, the calculation logic, and the accepted input format in two sentences. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 gives the essential calculation context and input mode, but it omits guidance on optional parameters and output behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what the result represents or how the index is chosen would make the tool more reliably callable.
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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the core comparison (inflation index vs TR) and the 3% interest, but it does not explicitly describe data_calculo, incluir_juros_3aa, or how the indice enum interacts with the calculation. Parameter names and the enum partially fill the gap, but the description could do more.
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 opens with the specific domain ('Correção do FGTS (tese TR → INPC/IPCA-E, STF)') and a concrete verb ('calcula a diferença entre corrigir pelo índice de inflação vs pela TR'), so an agent can clearly identify what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling calculo_* tools by naming the FGTS thesis and per-deposit calculation scope.
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 when to use the tool: when FGTS correction is needed and deposit-level data is available manually. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, even though many similar calculo_* siblings exist.
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.