ASTRA

set_parameter

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a numeric parameter in the ASTRA simulation state by path, letting AI assistants adjust neuromorphic model settings for experiments.

Instructions

Modify State Parameter

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what gets overwritten, whether the path must exist, permission needs, or effect scope. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero additional behavioral context.

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 the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is only one phrase and it does no work beyond echoing the title.

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 an idempotent, destructive mutation tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum explain what state is being modified and the path/value conventions. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to invoke it safely or correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters (path, value). The description provides no information about the path format, the meaning of 'value' (units, allowed range), or whether path is hierarchical — the exact burden the description should carry when the schema is bare.

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 'Modify State Parameter' merely restates the tool name set_parameter and its title. It gives a verb (modify) and a generic resource (state parameter) but never says which state, which subsystem, or what kind of parameter, so it cannot be distinguished from siblings like simulation_control or ovo_set_policy.

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, no preconditions, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing set_parameter over simulation_control or any other mutator.

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

Deploy Server