Progressão de regime (LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019): percentual de cumprimento por primário/reincidente × comum/hediondo × violência/resultado morte, descontando remição (trabalho/estudo) e detração, e retorna a data de progressão.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hediondo | No | ||
| pena_anos | Yes | ||
| violencia | No | ||
| reincidente | No | ||
| horas_estudo | No | ||
| dias_detracao | No | ||
| resultado_morte | No | ||
| dias_trabalhados | No | ||
| inicio_cumprimento | 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?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the calculation logic: percentage based on legal categories, discounts for work/study remission and detention, and the returned progression date. It does not contradict 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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and the legal domain is front-loaded. It encodes a complex formula compactly and is appropriately sized, though it is somewhat overloaded with legal qualifiers.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, 9 parameters, and no output schema, the description gives the core calculation factors and the return value, but it leaves the required sentence-length and start-date inputs implicit and omits percentage specifics or output format details. It is adequate for selecting the tool but not fully sufficient for invoking it with complete confidence.
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 the 9 parameters. It does map most of them conceptually: reincidente, hediondo, violencia, resultado_morte, dias_trabalhados, horas_estudo, and dias_detracao. However, the two required parameters — pena_anos and inicio_cumprimento — are only implicit in 'percentual de cumprimento' and 'data de progressão' rather than explicitly described.
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 calculation — prison regime progression under LEP art. 112/Lei 13.964/2019 — and lists the decisive factors (reincidence, heinous crime, violence, death result), remission, and detention. It also states the concrete output: the progression date. This clearly distinguishes it from the other calculo_* sibling tools.
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 provides strong contextual clues that this tool is for calculating prison regime progression, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.