Pensão alimentícia em atraso (art. 528 CPC): por mês do período calcula o devido (% do salário mínimo do mês, valor fixo ou % da remuneração), subtrai pagamentos e aplica correção (INPC) + juros 1% a.m. desde cada vencimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forma | Yes | ||
| juros | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| pagamentos | No | ||
| referencia | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| remuneracoes | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable algorithmic transparency: it discloses the per-month calculation, the three calculation modes, subtraction of payments, and the INPC correction plus 1% monthly interest from each due date.
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 purpose, then packs the calculation rules into parentheticals and clauses, giving maximum information per word.
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 main calculation flow well, but with 9 parameters and no output schema, some gaps remain. It does not explain what the tool returns, nor explicitly clarify whether juros and indice parameters override the stated INPC/1% defaults, nor define data_calculo. These are meaningful gaps for a complex financial calculation 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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It successfully explains the main concepts: forma modes, payment subtraction, correction/interest, and the period. Some parameters like data_calculo and the precise role of referencia remain implicit, but the core relationship between inputs and the calculation is clear.
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 ('Pensão alimentícia em atraso'), cites the legal basis (art. 528 CPC), and details the exact calculation scope: monthly due amount, payment subtraction, correction, and interest. This clearly differentiates it from sibling calculation tools like calculo_trabalhista or calculo_revisional.
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 strong contextual grounds for when to use this tool: overdue alimony under art. 528 CPC. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the subject matter is specific enough that an agent can reliably route to it among the many calculo_* siblings.
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.