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?
The description discloses the full calculation flow: index-based adjustment, monthly correction of overdue amounts, 1% monthly mora interest, and penalty, and it states the return format (month-by-month detail plus total). Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints. A minor ambiguity remains about whether the optional juros/multa/indice parameters override the stated defaults, but this does not contradict the 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?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a return-value statement. It front-loads the legal basis and domain, enumerates the computation steps in a compact list-like structure, and ends with the output shape. Every clause is informative and there is no wordiness or redundancy.
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 purpose, legal context, computation logic, and return format, which is reasonably complete for a read-only calculation tool. However, with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the meaning and format of inputs are left inadequately specified, and potential relationships between optional parameters and default interest/penalty values are unclear. An agent can select this tool but may struggle to populate all parameters correctly.
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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only alludes to concepts like initial rent, contract, and overdue months without mapping them to actual fields (aluguel_inicial, inicio_contrato, inicio_atraso, fim_atraso). The optional parameters (juros, multa, indice, periodicidade_meses) are completely unexplained, and the description's phrase 'até hoje' may conflict with the required fim_atraso parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the invocation.
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 'reajusta' and 'corrige' overdue rents (aluguéis em atraso) under Lei 8.245/91, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculo_fgts, calculo_pensao, or calculo_revisional. The legal basis and the focus on rent arrears make the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for overdue rent calculations under the specific law. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the domain-specific phrasing 'Aluguéis em atraso' provides enough context to route an agent correctly among the many calculo_* siblings. A slight gap is the lack of explicit comparison to related rent tools, but the context is strong.
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 are largely distinct by legal domain, but several share the same underlying correction/juros mechanics (e.g., calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_trabalhista). Platform tools add further boundary confusion: marketplace includes report_bug, list_tools, and auth-related functionality that overlaps with the standalone report_bug, toolkit_info, and connect tools.
The 16 calculation tools follow a consistent calculo_<domain> pattern, which is good. However, the remaining tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun phrases (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating two distinct naming conventions within the same server.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy side of the borderline range. The domain calculators are individually justified, but adding six platform-level tools — including the very broad marketplace tool — makes the overall surface feel bloated for a server whose apparent purpose is judicial liquidation calculation.
The calculation tools cover a wide range of judicial liquidation scenarios: general debt updating, rent, alimony, labor, FGTS, bank contract revision, INSS restitution, RMC/RCC, criminal sentencing, prisoner progression, pension RMI, contribution time, and asset division. Minor gaps exist — such as a dedicated standalone honorários calculator or a more explicit precatório/RPV tool — but calculo_atualizar largely covers general monetary updating.