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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description fully discloses the calculation behavior: base average, gender-specific coefficient thresholds, and floor/cap clamping. An agent can predict exactly what computation will happen, and the annotations already rule out side effects.
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 entire behavior fits in one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds a structural part of the calculation, from inputs to coefficient to floor/cap constraints.
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 5-parameter calculator with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core calculation, input roles, and floor/cap behavior. It could add explicit parameter units or edge-case notes, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by mapping all five parameters: media_salarios, tempo_contribuicao_anos and sexo via the coefficient rule, and salario_minimo/teto_inss as piso/teto. It does not explicitly state units or formats, but the formula and schema types make these mostly inferable.
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 the exact output — Renda Mensal Inicial under EC 103/2019 — and gives the precise formula: average salary × coefficient, with minimum wage floor and INSS cap. The '20H/15M' gender-specific threshold and piso/teto terms make it clearly distinct from sibling calculo_* 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 provides clear context: it is for post-reform RMI calculation using contribution average, coefficient, minimum wage floor, and INSS cap. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the formula leaves little ambiguity about the intended use.
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.