Skip to main content
Glama
lucianumm

PJe-Calc MCP

by lucianumm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Holerites transcritos -> históricos salariais

holerites_para_historicos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts transcribed payslips and payroll item groups into salary histories and contract remuneration periods, validating totals, missing months, and unassigned earnings for PJe-Calc calculations.

Instructions

Recebe a transcrição dos holerites (competência, rubricas com código, descrição, referência, valor e tipo P/D, totais e líquido, documento e folha) e o agrupamento das rubricas em históricos ({ nome, rubricas: [códigos ou descrições], fgts, inss }). Confere o fechamento de cada holerite (proventos − descontos = líquido), acusa competências faltantes no período, proventos que não entraram em histórico e meses sem a rubrica; devolve historicosSalariais (ocorrências com _origem) e contrato.remuneracoes (vigências).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodoNoPeríodo do contrato (aaaa-mm), para acusar competências faltantes.
holeritesYesHolerites transcritos: { competencia, rubricas: [{ codigo, descricao, referencia, valor, tipo P|D }], totais, liquido, documento, folha }.
historicosNoAgrupamento das rubricas em históricos: [{ nome, rubricas: [códigos ou descrições], fgts, inss }].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.16.0-mcp.14
    • addedInput schema / properties / historicos / description
      Added value: +"Agrupamento das rubricas em históricos: [{ nome, rubricas: [códigos ou descrições], fgts, inss }]."
    • addedInput schema / properties / holerites / description
      Added value: +"Holerites transcritos: { competencia, rubricas: [{ codigo, descricao, referencia, valor, tipo P|D }], totais, liquido, documento, folha }."
    • addedInput schema / properties / periodo / description
      Added value: +"Período do contrato (aaaa-mm), para acusar competências faltantes."
  2. First observedv2.16.0-mcp.13

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it verifies proventos − descontos = líquido, flags missing competências, proventos not absorbed into a history, and months lacking a rubrica, and names the return shape (historicosSalariais with _origem, contrato.remuneracoes). This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads what is received, then the checks, then what is returned — a logical order — and every clause carries information. It is a single dense multi-clause sentence, which slightly hurts parseability but wastes little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and nested-object inputs, the description compensates by naming both returned artifacts (historicosSalariais ocorrências with _origem, contrato.remuneracoes vigências) and the validation semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so periodo, holerites and historicos are already documented in the schema. The description restates the field groupings but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific transformation (transcrição de holerites -> históricos salariais) with concrete verbs (recebe, confere, devolve) and enumerates exactly which fields flow in and out. An agent can distinguish it from adjacent 'X para Y' siblings (extrato_para_fgts, trct_para_pagamentos) because the resource pair is named precisely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (converting transcribed payslips into salary histories with validation) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is inferable from the transformation framing rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools