RMC/RCC — reserva de margem consignável de cartão (INSS, códigos 217/268): limites de 5% e restituição corrigida dos descontos. Tese: cartão rotativo vendido como consignado que nunca amortiza.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| beneficio_mensal | 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?
The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful domain context about computing 5% limits and corrected restitution of discounts, going beyond the annotations. Still, it does not clearly state operational behavior such as how inputs are used or what the calculation produces.
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 key subject, and it avoids filler. The thesis sentence is short but somewhat cryptic; it adds context without fully explaining the calculation, so the structure earns a strong but not perfect score.
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 tool has five parameters with zero schema-derived descriptions. The description gives useful domain color but leaves out essential operational details: what the tool returns, how beneficio_mensal and descontos relate to the calculation, and how tipo/indice affect the result. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this tool reliably.
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 compensate by explaining the input parameters, but it only vaguely references 'descontos' and the INSS margin context. It does not clarify beneficio_mensal, tipo, indice, data_calculo, or the meaning of the RMC/RCC and index enums. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate the parameters correctly.
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 clearly identifies the tool's domain: RMC/RCC calculations involving INSS consignable card margin, codes 217/268, 5% limits, and corrected restitution of discounts. It distinguishes this from sibling calculation tools by naming a specific and uncommon legal/financial subject. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculates' or 'returns', so the action is mostly inferred from the tool name.
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 tool is for RMC/RCC cases tied to INSS codes 217/268 and a revolving-card-sold-as-consigned thesis. This gives enough context for a domain-aware agent to narrow the selection, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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.