Aluguéis em atraso (Lei 8.245/91): reajusta o aluguel ao longo do contrato pelo índice, corrige cada mês atrasado até hoje, aplica juros de mora (1% a.m.) e multa moratória. Retorna detalhamento por mês + total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| juros | No | ||
| multa | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | Yes | ||
| aluguel_inicial | Yes | ||
| inicio_contrato | Yes | ||
| periodicidade_meses | 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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the material calculation rules: index-based adjustment, monthly correction of overdue installments, 1% monthly late interest, penalty, and a per-month plus total return. It does not disclose how optional parameters like data_calculo or periodicidade_meses alter the behavior.
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?
Two efficient sentences: the first states the scope and rules, the second the return format. No filler or repetition of schema information.
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 read-only calculation with strong annotations, the remaining gaps are optional parameter semantics and the absence of an output schema. The description still gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool for the standard use case.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the main domain concepts (initial rent, contract start, overdue period, index, interest, penalty) but does not map them to specific parameter names or explain optional fields such as periodicidade_meses, data_calculo, and the indice enum values.
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 (overdue rent) and a precise legal basis (Lei 8.245/91), then enumerates the operations: reajuste, monthly correction, late interest, penalty, and output. This clearly distinguishes it from the many 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?
It clearly defines the target case: overdue rent under the Brazilian lease law, with indexation and monetary correction. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the legal and factual scenario is enough to route an agent to the correct calculator.
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 each target a distinct legal area (labor, FGTS, alimony, sentencing, INSS, etc.), and detailed descriptions clarify their boundaries. Some relationship exists among correction/index-based calculators, but the legal context makes them distinguishable. The platform tools are also separate from the domain calculators, though marketplace is broad.
All 16 calculation tools follow a consistent `calculo_<area>` snake_case pattern, which is good. However, the six platform/admin tools use a different style and language (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating a clear split between the two clusters.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy end. The 16 legal calculators each earn their place for a broad Brazilian legal-calculation suite, but the additional platform and marketplace plumbing tools inflate the count and make the server feel less focused.
The tool surface covers a wide range of Brazilian legal calculation needs: labor, FGTS, criminal sentencing, prison progression, INSS benefits, alimony, divorce, banking revisions, and monetary correction. Minor gaps exist, such as dedicated overtime or additional-hours calculators, but the core workflows are well covered with no obvious dead ends.