Retrieve spike counts per electrode from a neuromorphic simulation for a specified experiment and look-back window. Get spikes/minute activity to analyze neural firing patterns.
NeuroPlatform v2 DB — SpikeCountQuery: spikes/minute per electrode over a time window
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fsname | No | Experiment ID | fs264 |
| window_sec | No | Look back this many seconds of sim-clock | |
| nonzero_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'NeuroPlatform v2 DB' and 'query', implying a read-only database operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, output format, or performance characteristics. Minimal contextual information beyond the tool's existence.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose, data source, and key output metric, using a clear front-loaded 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?
The tool is simple and has no output schema. The description communicates the core output concept (spikes/minute per electrode) but omits details about the exact return structure, defaults, or how window_sec and nonzero_only affect the response. It is adequate for a basic query tool but leaves room for interpretation.
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?
Schema descriptions cover fsname and window_sec, while nonzero_only lacks a description. The tool description's phrase 'over a time window' adds context to window_sec, but it does not explain nonzero_only or add meaning to fsname beyond the schema. With 67% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter explanation.
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 defines the tool as a 'SpikeCountQuery' returning 'spikes/minute per electrode over a time window', clearly identifying the resource (spike counts per electrode) and the computation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'queries' or 'returns', and while it differentiates from event-based tools such as np_query_spike_events, it does not clearly distinguish from the similarly named np_count_spikes.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings like np_query_spike_events or np_count_spikes, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.