Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASTRA

ASTRA

by christophejlegros-lgtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

np_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches NeuroPlatform v2 platform and controller status to help MCP clients monitor bio-computing telemetry and verify pipeline availability.

Instructions

NeuroPlatform v2 — Platform & Controller Status

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": "np_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the headline — no mention of what the status snapshot reports (health, controller state, uptime) or whether it is cheap/cached.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded line with zero padding, which is structurally fine, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the terseness comes from omitting information rather than from tight editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists and the annotations only cover safety, so the description is the only place to say what a 'status' payload contains. It never does, nor does it disambiguate from the many sibling status/metrics tools, leaving an agent unable to predict the return value.

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 the schema carries no semantics to explain; per the rubric this is the baseline 4 by default. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 essentially the tool's title restated: 'Platform & Controller Status' adds a scope word ('Controller') but no verb and no distinguishing feature. With siblings named get_platform_status, get_system_status, get_snn_state, wm_status and sensor_status, an agent cannot tell which status endpoint this is or how it differs.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mention at all. Given at least four sibling status tools in the list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap, though it is not misleading.

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