Correção do FGTS (tese TR → INPC/IPCA-E, STF): por depósito calcula a diferença entre corrigir pelo índice de inflação vs pela TR, com juros de 3% a.a. da conta. Aceita depósitos manuais (ou, futuramente, extrato OCR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indice | No | ||
| depositos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| incluir_juros_3aa | 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 declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds useful specifics: the calculation is per deposit, it accepts manual deposits today with OCR planned for the future, and it includes the 3% p.a. account interest component. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 that packs legal context, calculation behavior, and interest rule into a compact space. The only minor inefficiency is the parenthetical future roadmap about OCR extraction, which is not needed for invoking the tool today.
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?
For a read-only calculation tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, the description explains what is computed, at what granularity, and under which legal rule. There is no output schema, but the description makes the natural result clear: a difference per deposit. It is slightly light on exact input shapes and explicit comparison with sibling tools, but those gaps are not crippling.
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 carry parameter meaning. It connects domain concepts to likely parameters: 'depósitos manuais' maps to the required depositos, 'índice de inflação vs TR' maps to indice, and 'juros de 3% a.a.' maps to incluir_juros_3aa. Still, it does not specify the expected structure of depositos or clarify how all four parameters are meant to be populated, so an agent lacks full value-level guidance.
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 the exact resource (FGTS) and the operation: per deposit, calculate the difference between correcting by an inflation index and by TR, under the STF thesis. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling calculo_* tools, each of which targets a different calculation domain.
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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: FGTS correction under the STF TR-to-inflation thesis, with manual deposits as the current input mode. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary relative to sibling tools like calculo_revisional or calculo_trabalhista.
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.