Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASTRA

ASTRA

by christophejlegros-lgtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

orch_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Review consolidated Orch OR status, including theory epistemic standing, Penrose criterion at 2×10¹⁰ tubulins, decoherence budget, and verdicts for three ASTRA substrates.

Instructions

Consolidated Orch OR status: theory epistemic standing, Penrose criterion at the canonical 2×10¹⁰ tubulins, decoherence budget, and the verdict for each of the three ASTRA substrates.

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_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content scope (which sections the report contains), which is useful, but says nothing about cost, latency, or return format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the report's contents without padding. Every clause carries informational weight and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is telling the agent what comes back — and the description enumerates the four content areas. It is nearly complete, though the sibling-overlap ambiguity (report vs. the individual orch_* tools) is unaddressed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and correctly so for a no-arg report call.

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 clear verb+resource (a consolidated Orch OR status report) and enumerates the specific content it covers: epistemic standing, Penrose criterion at 2×10¹⁰ tubulins, decoherence budget, and per-substrate verdicts. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like orch_criterion, orch_decoherence, and orch_substrate, whose subject matter it overlaps.

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?

The word 'Consolidated' implies this is the aggregate/overview call an agent should reach for instead of the granular siblings, but that is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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