Progressão de regime (LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019): percentual de cumprimento por primário/reincidente × comum/hediondo × violência/resultado morte, descontando remição (trabalho/estudo) e detração, e retorna a data de progressão.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hediondo | No | ||
| pena_anos | Yes | ||
| violencia | No | ||
| reincidente | No | ||
| horas_estudo | No | ||
| dias_detracao | No | ||
| resultado_morte | No | ||
| dias_trabalhados | No | ||
| inicio_cumprimento | 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, idempotentHint, and destrutiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational detail by listing the calculation dimensions and the discounts for remição and detração, but it does not disclose output format or edge-case assumptions.
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 that front-loads the purpose and packs in the legal factors without unnecessary filler. It could be better structured for readability, but every part contributes meaning.
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 9-parameter legal calculator with no output schema, this description is incomplete. It provides the formula outline and the date output, but omits required input semantics such as the unit of pena_anos and the expected format of inicio_cumprimento, and it never describes the return structure.
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 by explaining the parameters. It maps many of them (reincidente, hediondo, violência, resultado_morte, dias_trabalhados, hooras_estudo, dias_detração), but it does not explicitly cover the required pena_anos and inicio_cumprimento, nor their units/date format.
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 identifies a specific legal resource ('Progressão de regime'), cites the governing statute, and states that the tool returns the progression date. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling calculo_* tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with an alternative.
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 use is inferred from the legal formula and the output: use this when a prison-regime progression date must be calculated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison with the adjacent calculo_dosimetria tool.
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.