Tempo de contribuição (CNIS): soma os vínculos contando concomitância uma vez e converte atividade especial em comum (fatores EC 103/2019, só até 13/11/2019). Retorna tempo total e se atinge o tempo antigo (35H/30M).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sexo | Yes | ||
| vinculos | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it counts simultaneous vínculos only once, applies special conversion only up to the EC 103/2019 cutoff, and returns both total time and threshold attainment. 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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's subject, states the key calculation rules, and ends with the return-value summary. Every clause adds useful information.
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, idempotent calculation tool, the description provides the critical legal rules and the return values, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output format or units, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and schema.
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 carries most of the parameter-semantics burden. It explains that vínculos are summed with concomitância handled once and that special activity is converted, while 35H/30M gives sexo practical meaning by associating it with the old-time threshold. It does not spell out date formats or individual enum values, but the schema already exposes the structural details.
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 specific resource (tempo de contribuição/CNIS) and states precise behaviors: summing vínculos, counting concurrent periods once, converting special activity to common using EC 103/2019 factors up to 13/11/2019, and returning total time plus whether the old 35H/30M threshold is reached. This clearly distinguishes it from the other calculo_* sibling 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 context is clear: this tool is for CNIS contribution-time calculations, special-activity conversion, and evaluating the old-time threshold. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the subject matter is distinctive enough among the siblings that the intended usage is evident.
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.