Restituição de descontos indevidos no INSS (fraude associativa, códigos 280/304/310/378): soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas. Ressarcimento administrativo via acordo STF (ADPF 1.236).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indice | No | ||
| descontos | Yes | ||
| data_calculo | 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?
Annotations already establish readOnly=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by defining the calculation as summing corrected discounted installments and by specifying the administrative legal basis, which is non-obvious. It does not contradict the 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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then adds the legal context. Every sentence contributes information and there is no filler.
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?
Although the annotations cover side effects, there is no output schema, and the description leaves important operational details unexplained: how indices affect the correction, how data_calculo is used, and what the result looks like. For a tool with an array input and an enum index parameter, the description is informative but not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 only hints at the semantics of the main 'descontos' array through 'soma as parcels descontadas'. It never explains the 'ind' meaning beyond the vague word 'corrigidas', and 'data_calculo' is completely unaddessed. This is insufficient for the three parameters.
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 explains the tool's purpose: calculating restitution of undue INSS discounts by summing corrected installments, and it anchors the tool in a specific legal context (STF agreement ADPF 1.236) with specific INSS codes, which distinguishes it from the many sibling calculation tools. This is a specific resource plus detailed scope, not a placeholder.
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 for when to use the tool: for administrative INSS refund scenarios involving 'fraude associativa' and the listed codes 280/304/310/378. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full alternative-based guidance.
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.