ASTRA

fcs_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve consolidated substrate-constrained functionalism status, including four-level framework, core/belt partition, Pareto strata, conformance audit, prohibitions, and revision order.

Instructions

Consolidated substrate-constrained functionalism status: the four-level framework, the core/belt partition, the seventeen species–function pairs in their Pareto strata, the per-substrate conformance audit, the five prohibitions of the negative heuristic, and the declared revision order. Carries no aggregate score of any kind — prohibition 4 forbids one.

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_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`useLiveBiomarkers`	No	Bind the conformance audit to the live IRB welfare channels. Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the report's components and explicitly states that no aggregate score is returned because of prohibition 4. It does not describe auth, rate limits, or response format, but with annotations covering safety, this is a meaningful addition.

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?

The description is two sentences: a front-loaded consolidated status with an enumerated component list, followed by a short prohibition note. It is dense with domain jargon but contains no filler or redundant repetition; every item appears to map to report content.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by listing the report's components and excluding an aggregate score. The parameter and safety profile are handled by schema and annotations, leaving usage selection as the main gap.

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% for the single parameter useLiveBiomarkers, whose description explains binding the conformance audit to live IRB welfare channels and that it defaults to true. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

The description states it returns consolidated substrate-constrained functionalism status and enumerates the specific components: the four-level framework, core/belt partition, species-function pairs in Pareto strata, conformance audit, prohibitions, and revision order. It clearly identifies the resource, though it lacks an action verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from fcs_taxonomy, fcs_conformance, or orch_report.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes fcs_taxonomy, fcs_stratify, fcs_conformance, fcs_lint, and orch_report, but the description never states conditions for choosing this consolidated report. It only notes an output exclusion.

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

Deploy Server