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?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the R$600 existential minimum is parameterizable and the payment-capacity analysis considers plans of up to 5 years. It does not describe the exact return format, but the safety profile is already covered by 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, front-loaded sentence: it opens with the domain and legal basis, then lists the output concepts after a colon. Every word carries meaning, and there is no repetition of the tool name or 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?
The description is adequate for a read-only calculation tool: it names the legal rule, the default minimum existential value, and the expected output concepts. It lacks an explicit mapping to required and optional parameters and does not describe the response structure, which matters because there is no output 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explicitly explains `minimo_existencial` via 'R$600, parametrizável' and hints at `prazo_meses` via 'plano de até 5 anos', while `renda_liquida` and `dividas` are only indirectly inferable from 'renda comprometida/disponível'. It does not state required inputs or describe the fields of the `dividas` array.
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 the domain (superendividamento), cites the applicable law, and lists the computed outputs: percentage of committed income, existential minimum, available income, and payment capacity. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling calculation tools by topic, though it stops short of a 5 because 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 phrase 'Superendividamento (Lei 14.181/2021)' provides clear legal context for when this tool should be used, and no sibling tool appears to cover the same subject. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full 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.