ASTRA

orch_gate_config

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure the classical surrogate gate for ASTRA by setting enabled, epoch, ignition floor, and tie-band values to reproduce Orch OR temporal signatures without objective reduction.

Instructions

Enable or configure the classical surrogate gate (epoch-quantised ignition with stochastic tie-break). The gate reproduces the Orch OR temporal signature only; it does not instantiate objective reduction.

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": "orch_gate_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enabled`	No
`epochMs`	No
`ignitionFloor`	No
`tieBandFraction`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful conceptual context about the surrogate gate and its limitation, but does not disclose what is destroyed or what operational side effects occur for this destructive mutation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the scope limitation. There is no filler, and the structure is appropriate for the information provided.

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?

For a 4-parameter configuration mutation with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, defaults, and behavioral effects of enabling or configuring the gate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'epoch-quantised ignition' and 'stochastic tie-break', which loosely hint at epochMs, ignitionFloor, and tieBandFraction, but it never names parameters, explains ranges, defaults, or effects.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enable or configure') and resource ('classical surrogate gate'), with mechanism details and a scope disclaimer. It distinguishes this gate config from objective-reduction Orch OR tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative sibling is named. The second sentence provides a scope exclusion ('does not instantiate objective reduction'), which implies usage boundaries but does not route the agent to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server