Consulta de índice oficial: fator de correção acumulado entre duas datas (mês inicial excluído, mês final incluído — convenção BACEN/IBGE). Se valor informado, retorna o valor corrigido; se incluir_valores true, retorna as variações mensais publicadas (puxar os índices crus).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valor | No | ||
| indice | Yes | ||
| pro_rata | No | ||
| data_final | No | ||
| data_inicial | Yes | ||
| incluir_valores | 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 establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the month exclusion/inclusion convention and the conditional return modes depending on `valor` and `incluir_valores`. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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-loads the main purpose before diving into optional behavior. The clauses are dense but every part adds information. It is slightly run-on due to the parenthetical convention note, but overall well-sized.
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 covers the core use case and optional outputs, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves gaps: `pro_rata` is undocumented, `data_final` optionality/default is not stated, and the exact return shape is vague. It is adequate, but not complete for a 6-parameter tool.
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, and it partially does: it explains the meaning and effect of `valor`, `incluir_valores`, and the date-range convention. However, `pro_rata` is left completely unexplained, and date format/default behavior for `data_final` is not addressed.
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 a specific resource ('índice oficial') and a specific action ('fator de correção acumulado entre duas datas'), with the BACEN/IBGE convention clearly stated. This distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calculo_aluguel or calculo_fgts without needing to open their schemas.
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 gives clear functional context: it is the tool for official index correction factors between two dates. It also explains the two optional behaviors based on `valor` and `incluir_valores`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when 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 calculo_* tools are mostly distinct by legal domain, but calculo_atualizar is a generic monetary-correction tool that overlaps with correction logic built into calculo_pensao, calculo_aluguel, and calculo_fgts. The platform tools like connect and toolkit_info are distinct but sit awkwardly alongside the calculators.
The legal calculators consistently use a calculo_ prefix in snake_case, but suffixes mix verbs, nouns, adjectives, and acronyms. The six meta tools break the pattern entirely with bare names like connect, marketplace, and report_bug.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the scope mismatch is severe: a server named 'Cálculo de Pensão Alimentícia' exposes 16 calculators for unrelated legal areas plus 6 platform administration tools. Only calculo_pensao directly matches the server name, making the count feel inflated and unfocused.
For the stated child-support purpose, the surface is incomplete: calculo_pensao covers only arrears and lacks clear support for prospective alimony calculation, modification/review, or enforcement scenarios. If viewed as a general legal calculator suite, it is broad but still has notable gaps, and the narrow server name makes those gaps more glaring.