simular_regime_tributarioSimula e compara regimes tributários (Simples Nacional, Lucro Presumido, Lucro Real) para a empresa, indicando o mais vantajoso.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| empresaId | No | ID da empresa | |
| folhaPagamento | No | Folha de pagamento mensal em reais | |
| faturamentoAnual | Yes | Faturamento anual estimado em reais | |
| atividadePrincipal | No | CNAE ou descrição da atividade principal |
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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool indicates the most advantageous regime, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential dependencies (e.g., on company data via empresaId) or any limitation beyond what the schema already provides.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core action, the specific regimes, and the outcome without any filler or redundant information.
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?
Given the readOnlyHint annotation and the parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output ('indicando o mais vantajoso'). It does not detail return structure, but the indication of the most advantageous regime is sufficient for this simulation tool. The inclusion of the three regimes adds necessary context.
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 100% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, giving it a baseline score of 3.
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 states a specific verb ('Simula e compara') and resource (regimes tributários), listing the three exact regimes (Simples Nacional, Lucro Presumido, Lucro Real). It also states the outcome ('indicando o mais vantajoso'), distinguishing this tool from vague or generic names. This differentiates it from sibling tools like simular_imposto_reforma.
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 implies usage when one needs to compare tax regimes for a company, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. No mention of when not to use or sibling guidance is present.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but several overlap: 'calcular_cbs_ibs' and 'consultar_aliquota_cbs_ibs' both deal with CBS/IBS rates, 'criar_cobranca' and 'criar_cobranca_pix' create similar things, and multiple metrics tools (dashboard_executivo, saude_financeira, autopilot_regua) could confuse an agent. The reconciliation_* group is well-differentiated, but overall the large, overlapping surface creates ambiguity.
Names mix Portuguese and English inconsistently (e.g., 'agendar_cobranca' vs. 'subscribe_webhook'). Most Portuguese names follow verb_noun, but many English names are noun_verb (e.g., 'reconciliation_execute') rather than verb_noun. Additionally, some names are vague or non-descriptive ('autopilot_regua', 'badges_contadores', 'metricas_escritorio'), breaking any predictable pattern.
61 tools is excessive for most MCP servers, even for a broad financial/fiscal automation domain. The count feels bloated, and several tools (e.g., criar_orcamento, listar_orcamentos) are dead weight being deactivated. This would likely be better split into multiple focused servers (e.g., cobranças, reconciliation, fiscal).
The tool surface covers many workflows: cobranças, NFS-e, reconciliation, tax simulation, dashboards, webhooks, and client insights. However, there are notable gaps in basic CRUD: no update/delete for cobranças or clientes, and no way to manage orcamentos (they're deactivated). The reconciliation module is very complete, but the overall surface has dead ends and missing lifecycle operations.