ASTRA

sensor_process

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a full multimodal pipeline that combines olfactory, visual, and audio inputs into a fused latent representation z for neuromorphic simulation.

Instructions

Full Multimodal Pipeline (All Modalities → Fused z)

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": "sensor_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`compounds`	No	Olfactory compounds to simulate
`visualSource`	No	Visual source (default: simulated)
`audioFrequency`	No	Audio tone frequency for simulation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

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, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond those annotations – no ordering of modality processing, no cost/rate behavior, and no indication of what 'fused z' represents as a result.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single noun-phrase fragment that omits the verb and any operational detail. There is nothing to front-load because almost nothing is said.

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 pipeline tool with three optional parameters that evidently orchestrates multiple modalities, the description explains neither its behavior, the meaning of the 'fused z' output, nor how it relates to the per-modality and fusion siblings. Annotations cover safety only, so the behavioral gap remains.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so compounds, visualSource, and audioFrequency are already documented in the schema; the baseline for full coverage with no added insight in the description is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how modalities combine).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The fragment identifies the resource ('Full Multimodal Pipeline') and the effect ('All Modalities → Fused z'), which distinguishes it from the single-modality siblings sensor_visual/sensor_audio/sensor_olfactory. However, it uses no verb and gives no concrete statement of action, leaving it ambiguous versus sensor_fuse.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several close siblings (sensor_fuse, sensor_visual, sensor_audio, sensor_olfactory, sensor_status). The agent must infer from the name alone whether this replaces or subsumes the individual sensor tools.

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

Deploy Server