RMI — Renda Mensal Inicial (pós-reforma EC 103/2019): média dos salários de contribuição × coeficiente (60% + 2% por ano acima de 20H/15M), com piso (salário mínimo) e teto (INSS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| teto_inss | No | ||
| media_salarios | Yes | ||
| salario_minimo | No | ||
| tempo_contribuicao_anos | 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 declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the coefficient rule (60% + 2% per year above 20H/15M) and the floor/ceiling logic, but it does not discuss edge cases, invalid inputs, or optional parameter defaults.
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, well-structured sentence that packs the benefit name, legal context, calculation formula, and floor/ceiling constraints. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explicitly state that the return value is the computed RMI amount, though this is strongly implied. The formula and parameter coverage are complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, but explicit return-value and default-behavior notes would make it fully self-contained.
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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It successfully maps all inputs: media_salarios, sexo via the 20H/15M threshold, tempo_contribuicao_anos via the 'per year' coefficient, salario_minimo as the floor, and teto_inss as the ceiling. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 as calculating RMI (Renda Mensal Inicial) and gives the specific formula: average contribution salaries × coefficient, with minimum wage floor and INSS ceiling. It is resource-specific and effectively distinct from sibling calculators, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates'.
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?
Usage is implied by the RMI definition and formula: an agent would use this tool when it needs the post-reform initial monthly retirement benefit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling calculators, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives.
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.