Aluguéis em atraso (Lei 8.245/91): reajusta o aluguel ao longo do contrato pelo índice, corrige cada mês atrasado até hoje, aplica juros de mora (1% a.m.) e multa moratória. Retorna detalhamento por mês + total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| juros | No | ||
| multa | No | ||
| indice | No | ||
| fim_atraso | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | No | ||
| inicio_atraso | Yes | ||
| aluguel_inicial | Yes | ||
| inicio_contrato | Yes | ||
| periodicidade_meses | 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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete calculation behavior: it readjusts rent by an index, corrects each overdue month, applies 1% a.m. interest plus a moratory fine, and returns a per-month breakdown and total. No contradiction with the annotations was found.
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 compact sentences with the domain and legal basis front-loaded, followed by the calculation steps and output shape. Every sentence contributes value and there is no repetition of annotation or schema data.
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?
It states the output shape and the core legal rules, but with nine parameters, no output schema, and zero schema-description coverage, key invocation details such as periodicidade_meses and input date formats remain unexplained. The phrase 'até hoje' also sits awkwardly with the required fim_atraso parameter, creating minor ambiguity about how the end date should be provided.
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%, and the description only partially compensates by explaining the legal formula and mentioning index, interest, fine, and contract/arrears concepts. It does not map parameters like periodicidade_meses, clarify date formats, or state whether juros and multa are optional overrides, so the agent must infer a significant amount from parameter names alone.
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 states the tool computes overdue rent under Lei 8.245/91, specifying the steps: index readjustment, monthly correction, 1% monthly interest, and moratory fine. It also names the return format (monthly breakdown plus total), making it immediately distinguishable from the many calculo_* siblings by subject matter.
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 intended scenario—calculating overdue rent—is unmistakable, so an agent can easily choose this over FGTS, pensão, trabalhista, or other sibling calculators. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to an overlapping sibling such as calculo_indice or calculo_atualizar for pure index/update calculations.
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 16 calculo_* tools are each tied to a specific legal area and are generally easy to distinguish. However, the platform tools overlap: marketplace bundles discovery, auth, listing, and bug-report flows that also exist in authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug.
The calculo_* group is highly consistent and readable. The six platform tools follow a different, more mixed English convention with bare verbs, noun phrases, and snake_case names, so the set as a whole has two naming schemas rather than one.
22 tools is in the heavy 16-25 range and feels excessive for a server titled 'Reajuste de Aluguel'. Some legal calculators are useful in a broader legal-calculation platform, but the title and the actual scope are mismatched.
For a broad Brazilian legal-calculation toolkit, coverage is quite wide: rent, monetary updating, criminal sentencing, FGTS, INSS, labor, and banking calculations are present. Still, there are notable gaps for a general legal surface, such as other INSS benefit calculations or civil compensation estimates, and the rent-adjustment title does not represent the full set.