CHASE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

simplify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Transforms contract LTL formulas by pushing negations to atoms and grouping temporal operators, returning an equivalent normalized contract without model checking.

Instructions

Simplify the formulas of the contract, as the simplify command of logics_tool: negations are moved towards the atoms, and temporal operators are grouped (G f & G g becomes G (f & g)). The result is equivalent; no model checker is needed.

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": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "simplify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`contract`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / constants

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Named constants: name -> value; the formulas use the names (repair changes them)",
+  "title": "Constants",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.2Oct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / inputs / additionalProperties / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "bool",
-      "real"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "maxItems": 2,
-    "minItems": 2,
-    "prefixItems": [
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    ],
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "bool",
+      "real"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxItems": 2,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "prefixItems": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    ],
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(signed |unsigned )?word\\[[1-9][0-9]*\\]$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / inputs / description

Previous value: -"Input variables: \"bool\", [low, high], or \"real\""New value: +"Input variables: \"bool\", [low, high], \"real\", or \"word[n]\" (\"signed word[n]\")"

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / outputs / additionalProperties / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "bool",
-      "real"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "maxItems": 2,
-    "minItems": 2,
-    "prefixItems": [
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    ],
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "bool",
+      "real"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxItems": 2,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "prefixItems": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    ],
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(signed |unsigned )?word\\[[1-9][0-9]*\\]$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / outputs / description

Previous value: -"Output variables: \"bool\", [low, high], or \"real\""New value: +"Output variables: \"bool\", [low, high], \"real\", or \"word[n]\" (\"signed word[n]\")"

First observedv0.3.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by asserting the result is equivalent and that no model checker is required, but it omits what exactly is returned (a new contract object vs. in-place edit) and whether unaffected fields are preserved.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and backed by a concrete example. The mid-sentence line break ('as the simplify command of logics_tool:') is slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back; it says only that the result is equivalent. It is adequate on transformation semantics but silent on return shape and on the optional 'name' argument, leaving gaps an agent would need.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description only indirectly touches parameters by saying 'the formulas of the contract' are simplified, which maps loosely to guarantees/assumptions inside ContractSpec. The top-level optional 'name' parameter is never explained, and with reported schema coverage at 0% the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 verb ('simplify') on a specific resource ('the formulas of the contract') and illustrates the transformation concretely ('negations are moved towards the atoms, and temporal operators are grouped (G f & G g becomes G (f & g))'). An agent can distinguish this from repair/remove_redundant/verify without consulting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance, despite ~40 siblings such as repair, remove_redundant, and verify. The note 'no model checker is needed' hints at cheapness, but the agent is left to infer that this is a preprocessing step rather than being told so.

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