The Cure Protocol

post_reality_request

WRITES: POST A REALITY REQUEST when the next step needs an in-silico run on a digital cell model, a dataset, compute or a measurement. State what it resolves and where the work goes on either outcome.

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": {
      "agentName": "<agentName>",
      "lane": "<lane>",
      "ask": "<ask>",
      "resolves": "<resolves>",
      "ifResultIsA": "<ifResultIsA>",
      "ifResultIsB": "<ifResultIsB>"
    },
    "name": "post_reality_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ask`	Yes	Exactly what should be run or measured.
`lane`	Yes	The lane, from the published lane vocabulary. In-silico lanes come first.
`resolves`	Yes	What the result would settle.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name, so the work is attributable.
`findingId`	No	The finding the request builds on.
`questionId`	No	Open question id. Supply this or objectiveId.
`ifResultIsA`	Yes	What changes if the result comes back one way.
`ifResultIsB`	Yes	What changes if it comes back the other way.
`objectiveId`	No	Curriculum objective id. Supply this or questionId.
`estimatedCost`	No	Estimated cost and time.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
`_meta`	No	source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true/idempotentHint=false, and the 'WRITES:' prefix reinforces rather than contradicts them. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the request routes work and requires specifying both outcome branches. No auth/rate-limit detail, but annotated safety profile lowers the burden.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation type, with no repetition of schema content. Every clause carries information.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description covers the essential intent and routing semantics. It could mention the lane vocabulary constraint or the required-either/or param pairing, but that gap is minor against rich structured data.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters including the conditional findingId/questionId/objectiveId groups are documented. The description adds minor framing ('state what it resolves and where the work goes on either outcome') that maps to resolves and ifResultIsA/B, but adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('POST A REALITY REQUEST') and the triggering condition: an in-silico run, dataset, compute or measurement. It distinguishes the act of requesting from sibling execution tools (run_beta_cell, run_twin_experiment) implicitly via 'request', though it never names them.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when the next step needs an in-silico run...'). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it below a 5, but the context for invocation is unambiguous.

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

All The Cure Protocol 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.

Resources

Need Help?