a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

prepare_derived_beam_simulation

Compile one exact replay-verified rectangular-beam derivation into a prepared bounded simulation study. The caller must supply the original derivation input and receipt, its exact validation receipt, simulation-eligible source-bound material evidence matching the modulus, an objective, source freshness, and a physical validation plan. The compiler replays first, derives a stable candidate ID, repeats deterministic review, preserves requester criteria as hard gates, and publishes omitted failure modes. It never chooses material or objective, verifies physical truth, runs a solver, stores data, contacts a supplier, or grants physical authority.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "derivation_input": "<derivation_input>",
      "derivation_receipt": "<derivation_receipt>",
      "derivation_validation": "<derivation_validation>",
      "source_metadata": "<source_metadata>",
      "objectives": "<objectives>",
      "material_property_evidence": "<material_property_evidence>",
      "physical_validation_plan": "<physical_validation_plan>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_derived_beam_simulation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objectives`	Yes
`source_metadata`	Yes
`derivation_input`	Yes
`derivation_receipt`	Yes
`derivation_validation`	Yes	Exact output returned by validate_rectangular_beam_section_derivation for the same input and receipt. Runtime replay and full canonical comparison are authoritative.
`physical_validation_plan`	Yes
`material_property_evidence`	Yes	Caller-supplied exact material-property source snapshot. Binding proves content identity and envelope validity only; it does not verify the source claim or create a design allowable.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the precise sequence (replays first, derives stable candidate ID, repeats deterministic review, preserves criteria as hard gates, publishes omitted failure modes) and lists all non-actions. This is exceptional transparency for a complex compiler tool.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the core action and required inputs front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence packs multiple non-goals efficiently without redundancy. It is dense but not overly long, and every phrase carries information. Structure is clear and scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 7 complex parameters and an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level context: the input requirements, the internal process, and the boundaries of responsibility. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not delve into every parameter's nuances, but given the output schema exists and the description is already substantial, it is sufficiently complete for effective invocation.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does mention high-level roles of the 7 parameters (e.g., 'simulation-eligible source-bound material evidence matching the modulus', 'source freshness', 'physical validation plan') and clarifies the requirement for exactness of the validation receipt. However, it does not explain individual parameter structure or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. It adds some semantic value but leaves room for improvement given the low coverage.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Compile') and a precise resource ('replay-verified rectangular-beam derivation into a prepared bounded simulation study'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_simulation_study and run_bounded_simulation_study. It states the input requirement and the compilation workflow, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It lists all required caller-supplied inputs and explicitly enumerates what the tool never does ('never chooses material or objective, verifies physical truth, runs a solver, stores data, contacts a supplier, or grants physical authority'). This gives clear exclusions and helps an agent decide when NOT to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases. The guidance is strong but could be more pointed.

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

All a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.