Skip to main content
Glama
RudrenduPaul

NeuronScope MCP Server

circuit

Sketch an automated causal pathway for a prompt by ranking attention heads and MLP neurons via logit attribution, then validate each with zero-ablation to show components that actually move the prediction.

Instructions

Sketch a best-effort automated circuit for one prompt on an open-weight TransformerLens model: ranks candidate attention heads and MLP neurons by direct logit attribution, then measures each candidate's individual causal effect via single-component zero-ablation, so the result reflects components that actually move the prediction, not just ones correlated with it. Call this when trace's correlational ranking isn't enough and you want a causal pass across multiple candidates without manually calling patch on each one. This is NOT full path-patching with clean/corrupted prompt pairs and does not capture interaction effects between components; the response's own method field restates this caveat so a caller doesn't have to trust prose alone. For rigorous transcoder-based circuit discovery on a fixed set of supported models, use a dedicated tool such as Anthropic's circuit-tracer instead. Read-only, with the same model-weight caching, network-on-first-use, and CPU-by-default behavior as trace; more expensive than trace since it runs one extra forward pass per candidate component being ablated. Deterministic for a given model, prompt, and top_k. On failure it returns a structured error object rather than raising. Parameters: model (str); prompt (str); top_k (int, default 10), how many top-attributed components to test via ablation. Example call: model='gpt2', prompt='The capital of France is Paris. The capital of Japan is', top_k=5. Returns JSON with schema_version, operation, model, prompt, predicted_token, predicted_token_id, components (list of {layer, component_type: 'head' or 'neuron', index, logit_drop_on_ablation}), and method (a string explaining the approximation).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYes
top_kNo
promptYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently: it discloses read-only nature, caching/network/CPU behavior, higher cost than trace, determinism, failure behavior (structured error object), and the methodological limitation that it does not capture interaction effects. This goes far beyond simple mutation/read hints.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, behavioral traits, parameter details, example, and return schema. It is front-loaded with the core mechanism, uses clear paragraph separation, and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, alternatives, limitations, operational behavior, parameter semantics, and the return JSON structure. The output schema is present but the description still enriches it by explaining each field's meaning.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly enumerates all three parameters with types and semantics: model (str), prompt (str), and top_k (int, default 10) explaining 'how many top-attributed components to test via ablation.' The example call further clarifies expected usage, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource+method: 'ranks candidate attention heads and MLP neurons by direct logit attribution, then measures each candidate's individual causal effect via single-component zero-ablation.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing trace's correlational ranking and patch, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Call this when trace's correlational ranking isn't enough and you want a causal pass across multiple candidates without manually calling patch on each one.' It also states when NOT to use it ('This is NOT full path-patching...') and points to an alternative ('use a dedicated tool such as Anthropic's circuit-tracer instead').

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RudrenduPaul/NeuronScope'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server