Assess IRB neural welfare and ethics compliance for bio-hybrid neuromorphic simulations to flag ethical risks.
IRB Neural Welfare Check
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "check_ethics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that—no statement of what is evaluated, whether it blocks other operations, or what a failing check implies.
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?
It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness—there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or behavior. A title-length string cannot earn credit for structure.
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?
For a check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the entire burden of explaining what is checked and what the result means, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what feedback this returns or how to act on it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameters are undocumented or misleading.
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 is a bare noun phrase, 'IRB Neural Welfare Check', which essentially restates the tool name and the annotation title. It hints at the domain (ethics/welfare review) but gives no specific verb-resource action, and does not distinguish this from the many other check/report siblings such as fcs_conformance or orch_criterion.
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?
There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool, what conditions trigger an ethics check, or what alternatives exist among the large sibling list. An agent has no basis for choosing this over fcs_lint, orch_criterion, or fcs_conformance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.