ASTRA

fcs_conformance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit one substrate or all three against 17 species-function pairs: see realized, simulated, absent, and undeterminable pairs, with IRB welfare biomarkers bound. Returns a profile, not a score.

Instructions

Audit one substrate — or all three — against the seventeen species–function pairs: which pairs it realises, which it only simulates, which are absent, and which ASTRA has no channel to determine. Binds the live IRB welfare biomarkers to the taxonomy (ATP/ADP → class 7, median per-unit firing rate → class 3 generator, viability → class 2b proxy). Class 1 (mobile charge) reads only an EXTRACELLULAR calcium value in mM supplied by the caller; ASTRA's eth.ca is intracellular second-messenger Ca²⁺ and binds to no pair. Returns a profile, never a conformance score.

Tool call template

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": "fcs_conformance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`calciumNm`	No	Intracellular free Ca²⁺, nM (second messenger) — reported, bound to no pair.
`substrate`	No	One substrate; omit for all three.
`atpAdpRatio`	No
`firingRateHz`	No	Median per-unit spontaneous firing rate, Hz (DANDI 001603 reference interval 0.14–0.63 Hz).
`viabilityPct`	No
`useLiveBiomarkers`	No	Start from the live state store, overridden by any value given above. Default true.
`extracellularCalciumMm`	No	Extracellular Ca²⁺ at the bath, mM — the only reading bound to class 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.1.1Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / calciumNm / description

Added value: +"Intracellular free Ca²⁺, nM (second messenger) — reported, bound to no pair."

addedInput schema / properties / extracellularCalciumMm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Extracellular Ca²⁺ at the bath, mM — the only reading bound to class 1.",
+  "maximum": 20,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / firingRateHz / description

Added value: +"Median per-unit spontaneous firing rate, Hz (DANDI 001603 reference interval 0.14–0.63 Hz)."

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly+idempotent+non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that it returns a profile and never a score, that live biomarkers bind to specific classes, and that class 1 reads only caller-supplied extracellular Ca²⁺ while ASTRA's intramolecular Ca²⁺ binds to nothing.

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?

Four dense sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, then the binding details. Jargon-heavy but each sentence carries load (especially the class 1 vs eth.ca distinction, which prevents a wrong call). Not padded, though very tightly packed.

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 zero-required-param audit tool with no output schema, it is adequate: it states the output is a profile (not a score) and enumerates the four result categories. Given the domain complexity it could say more about the profile's structure, but the caller has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 71%, and the prose compensates by giving binding semantics the schema omits: atpAdpRatio→class 7, firingRateHz→class 3 generator, viabilityPct→class 2b proxy, extracellularCalciumMm→class 1 only, and calciumNm→no pair. This is meaning beyond the schema descriptions for several of the seven parameters.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Audit one substrate — or all three — against the seventeen species–function pairs,' with an explicit output shape (which pairs realised/simulated/absent/undetermined). It is clearly distinct from generic status siblings, and it invokes 'the taxonomy' which hints at fcs_taxonomy, but it never names the sibling family (fcs_report, fcs_compare, fcs_stratify) to route the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The audit framing implies when to reach for it (conformance checking), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many fcs_ siblings. With fcs_report, fcs_compare, and fcs_taxonomy all present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

Deploy Server