Restituição de descontos indevidos no INSS (fraude associativa, códigos 280/304/310/378): soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas. Ressarcimento administrativo via acordo STF (ADPF 1.236).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | 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 disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior by stating that it sums corrected discount installments and applies the administrative STF framework, but it does not describe return values, error conditions, or edge cases.
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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the specific legal context, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite good annotations and a focused purpose, the description is incomplete for invocation: there is no output schema, no parameter-level explanation, and no detail on how indice or data_calculo affect the calculation. An agent would struggle to construct a correct request beyond providing descontos.
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%, and the description does not explain the role of indice, data_calculo, or the structure of descontos items. The phrase 'soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas' hints that descontos contains the discounted installments and that some correction index applies, but this is too implicit to guide correct parameter usage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes restitution of undue INSS discounts by summing corrected installments. It also distinguishes itself from sibling calculo_* tools by naming the exact INSS codes (280/304/310/378) and the STF administrative agreement (ADPF 1.236).
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 provides clear context for when this tool applies: undue INSS discounts, associative fraud, and administrative reimbursement via the STF agreement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the legal and factual framing strongly narrows the appropriate use case.
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.