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 establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements these by describing the computation behavior: it discounts work/study remission and pre-trial detention (detração) and returns a progression date rather than just a percentage. It could say more about the output format, but it adds meaningful behavioral context and does not contradict 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 dense sentence that conveys the legal basis, key inputs, discounting logic, and result with no filler. It is information-dense and front-loaded, though the compact formula-style notation makes it slightly technical.
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 nine-parameter legal calculator with no output schema, the description is informative but incomplete: it does not state which parameters are required, the exact percentage rules, or the full shape of the return value beyond a progression date. The schema covers required parameters, but an agent still lacks some practical invocation details.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the semantic burden. It maps the nine parameters to legal concepts: primário/reincidente, comum/hediondo, violência/resultado morte, remição via trabalho/estudo, and detração. It does not spell out units or defaults, but it gives enough domain meaning for an agent to understand what each parameter represents.
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 exact legal computation (progressão de regime under LEP art. 112, Lei 13.964/2019) and names the deliverable: it returns the progression date. The specific formula factors (primário/reincidente, comum/hediondo, violência/resultado morte, remição, detração) clearly distinguish it from sibling calculo_* 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 unambiguous: this tool is for prison sentence progression calculations, with the governing statute and applicable factors stated. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the legal domain is so specific that the intended use is clear.
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.
Most calculo_* tools are separated by legal scenario, but several overlap in the generic task of correcting overdue amounts with indices and interest (calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_fgts, calculo_restituicao_inss, calculo_rmc_rcc). Platform tools also overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent could easily misselect for a generic monetary-correction request.
The calculation tools follow a strong calculo_<area> pattern and platform tools use simple English verbs, with consistent snake_case throughout. The main inconsistency is the mix between Portuguese calculation names and English platform verbs, plus grammatical variation such as calculo_atualizar versus calculo_indice versus calculo_salario_minimo.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named 'Revisão de Contrato Bancário' yet only a few tools are actually banking-contract related. Most calculators target unrelated legal domains like criminal sentencing, divorce, labor, FGTS, INSS, and the marketplace/admin tools add further unrelated surface area.
For a banking-contract-review server, the set lacks obvious companions such as tariff/fee analysis, detailed financing scenario comparison, insurance/consignment breakdowns, or full settlement-planning support. The many unrelated calculators do not fill the gaps in the core banking domain.