Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021): % da renda comprometida, mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável), renda disponível e capacidade de pagamento de um plano de até 5 anos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dividas | Yes | ||
| prazo_meses | No | ||
| renda_liquida | Yes | ||
| minimo_existencial | 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 annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent calculator. The description adds useful calculation constraints, such as the R$600 default minimum existential being parametrizable and a 5-year plan horizon, but it does not disclose output format, default values for all parameters, or potential edge cases. 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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler; it front-loads the legal context and then lists the key outputs. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 calculator with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides the legal formula and result concepts but omits input semantics, units, optionality, and how the parametrizable minimum existential is configured. It is adequate for high-level selection but has clear gaps for correct invocation.
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 compensate, but it does not explain the actual input parameters like renda_liquida, dividas, or prazo_meses. It only hints conceptually at income and minimum existential, leaving the agent to map results to inputs without explicit 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 clearly identifies the domain (superendividamento under Lei 14.181/2021) and lists the metrics the tool computes: % of income committed, minimum existential, disposable income, and payment capacity for a 5-year plan. It distinguishes the tool from sibling calculators by topic, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calcula'.
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 legal citation and domain terminology imply use for over-indebtedness calculations, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many sibling calculators, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implicit, not explicit.
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.