RMI — Renda Mensal Inicial (pós-reforma EC 103/2019): média dos salários de contribuição × coeficiente (60% + 2% por ano acima de 20H/15M), com piso (salário mínimo) e teto (INSS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| teto_inss | No | ||
| media_salarios | Yes | ||
| salario_minimo | No | ||
| tempo_contribuicao_anos | 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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by exposing the exact formula, the 60% + 2% coefficient rule, the 20H/15M threshold, and the floor/ceiling behavior via salário mínimo and teto INSS. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the resource name and formula and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes semantic information about the calculation.
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 formula is sufficiently detailed for the core calculation, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain return value shape or what happens when the optional salario_minimo/teto_inss are not provided. It also lacks usage context beyond the formula, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It effectively maps media_salarios to 'média dos salários de contribuição', tempo_contribuicao_anos and sexo to the coefficient thresholds, and salario_minimo/teto_inss to piso/teto. However, it does not specify units, default behavior when optional parameters are omitted, or value formats.
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 the RMI (Renda Mensal Inicial) as average contribution salary times a coefficient. It also includes the EC 103/2019 context and the sex-specific thresholds, which clearly distinguishes 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?
The description strongly implies use for post-reform RMI calculation, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as calculo_pensao or calculo_revisional. There is no exclusion guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied.
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.