Pensão alimentícia em atraso (art. 528 CPC): por mês do período calcula o devido (% do salário mínimo do mês, valor fixo ou % da remuneração), subtrai pagamentos e aplica correção (INPC) + juros 1% a.m. desde cada vencimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forma | Yes | ||
| juros | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| pagamentos | No | ||
| referencia | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| remuneracoes | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | 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?
Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the calculation pipeline: monthly due amount, subtraction of payments, INPC correction, and 1% monthly interest from each maturity. It does not detail every edge case such as payment ordering or rounding, but it gives substantial behavioral context.
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?
A single dense sentence packs the subject, legal basis, timeframe, calculation modes, payment deduction, correction index, and interest rule. There is no filler and the core information is front-loaded.
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 complex nine-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description provides most of the needed context: what is calculated, how, over what period, and with what corrections. It stops short of describing the return shape and the exact meaning of 'referencia' and 'data_calculo', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the text compensates by explaining the forma modes ('% do salário mínimo', 'valor fixo', '% da remuneração'), the role of payments, the correction index, and the interest rate. The required 'referencia' parameter is not named explicitly and 'data_calculo' is absent, but most inputs are inferable from the described formula.
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 a specific domain ('Pensão alimentícia em atraso'), a specific legal basis (art. 528 CPC), and a concrete action ('calcula o devido'), with an explicit formula. This distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools such as calculo_aluguel or calculo_fgts without ambiguity.
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?
It clearly states the intended scenario: overdue alimony payments, calculated month by month. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the legal and factual context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.
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.