Fetch real-time metrics from ASTRA to monitor SNN LIF+STDP simulation and bio-computing platform telemetry.
Real-time Metrics
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": "get_metrics"
}
}| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond the title – no scope, no freshness/caching semantics for 'real-time', no cost. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added context.
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?
Three words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness – the same failure mode as a description that is simply the tool name. There is no front-loaded substance to speak of.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carried the full burden of telling the agent what this returns and when it is the right choice among ~70 siblings. 'Real-time Metrics' leaves the agent unable to know what data it gets back or how it differs from tcai_metrics or get_system_status.
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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify about call syntax.
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 the title restated verbatim: a bare noun phrase with no verb and no indication of what 'metrics' means or what is measured. It does not distinguish the tool from metric-adjacent siblings such as tcai_metrics, get_system_status, or get_acm_score. This is a tautology of the name/title.
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 statement of when to call this tool, what precedes or follows it, or how it differs from the many other status/metrics siblings. The description gives the agent nothing to reason about for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.