Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021): % da renda comprometida, mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável), renda disponível e capacidade de pagamento de um plano de até 5 anos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dividas | Yes | ||
| prazo_meses | No | ||
| renda_liquida | Yes | ||
| minimo_existencial | 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 semantic context about the calculation basis and the R$600 parametrizable minimum, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output shape, rounding, or handling of missing optional fields.
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. It front-loads the legal context and then lists the exact computed outputs, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 calculator with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level picture but leaves some invocation details implicit, such as how prazo_meses is expressed (months vs. years), whether renda_liquida is gross or net, and what the return structure looks like. The schema covers parameter names, and annotations cover safety, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 adds meaning for key parameters: 'mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável)' maps to minimo_existencial, 'plano de até 5 anos' maps to prazo_meses, and 'renda disponível' relates to renda_liquida. It does not explain the structure of 'dividas' beyond what the schema provides, but it gives useful legal and financial context for most inputs.
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 (over-indebtedness under Lei 14.181/2021) and specifies the outputs: percentage of committed income, existential minimum, available income, and payment capacity over up to 5 years. This is enough to distinguish it from most sibling calculators, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'calcula' and does not name a competing sibling.
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 legal citation and the specific financial concepts imply it should be used for over-indebtedness calculations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tools are mentioned. The intended context is reasonably inferable but not stated.
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.