Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASTRA

ASTRA

by christophejlegros-lgtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

get_platform_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve bio-computing platform status and telemetry from ASTRA to monitor availability, health, and operational state.

Instructions

Bio-Computing Platforms

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": "get_platform_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 carried entirely by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no scope, no freshness, no coverage of which platforms are reported — but it does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single fragment with no waste, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no front-loaded statement of purpose for a reader to latch onto.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no parameters, no output schema and no description of the returned status, an agent cannot tell what this tool returns or how it differs from the many other status/metrics siblings. For a no-argument query tool the description is the only place this could be conveyed, and it is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is only 'Bio-Computing Platforms', a noun phrase identical to the annotation title, so it tautologically restates the title rather than naming an action. It never says what 'platform status' means or what is reported, and it is indistinguishable from siblings such as get_system_status, np_status or ovo_status.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With over fifty siblings including several other status tools (get_system_status, sensor_status, wm_status, np_status), the agent gets no basis for choosing this one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools