RMC/RCC — reserva de margem consignável de cartão (INSS, códigos 217/268): limites de 5% e restituição corrigida dos descontos. Tese: cartão rotativo vendido como consignado que nunca amortiza.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| beneficio_mensal | 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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful calculation context ('5% limits' and 'corrected restitution of discounts') but does not disclose output structure, edge cases, or how the legal thesis affects the result.
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-loaded, with two sentences that carry meaningful domain information without padding. The 'Tese' sentence adds useful legal context, though it is not strictly operational.
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?
With no output schema and 5 parameters including a nested descontos array, the description should clarify input meaning and expected return value. It provides a high-level legal and calculation theme but leaves the agent without enough operational detail to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its result.
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, but it does not explain the individual parameters: beneficio_mensal, descontos format, tipo RMC vs RCC, or data_calculo. It only names 'descontos' in passing, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the required 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 identifies the exact legal/administrative subject: RMC/RCC reserve of consignable card margin for INSS codes 217/268, with 5% limits and corrected restitution. It does not use an explicit verb like 'calcula', but the resource and domain are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling calculation 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?
Clear context is provided: this tool is relevant when the case involves RMC/RCC, INSS codes 217/268, the 5% limit, or the thesis of a revolving card disguised as consigned that never amortizes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.