Retrieve current status and metrics for the ASTRA world model to monitor simulation health and performance.
World Model Status & Metrics
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": "wm_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title — no note on whether it is a cheap snapshot vs. an expensive aggregate, no refresh/side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but it is a label fragment rather than a sentence — brevity achieved by omission rather than by tight writing. There is no front-loaded scoping statement to justify the minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of hinting at what comes back and lacks it entirely; 'Status & Metrics' gives no sense of the payload (health flags, counters, model dimensions). Combined with zero sibling differentiation, an agent has little basis to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Schema coverage is 100% and trivially empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('wm_status' → 'World Model Status & Metrics') with no verb and no scope. It does not distinguish this from the many overlapping status/metrics siblings such as get_system_status, get_metrics, get_platform_status, np_status, or tcai_metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says whether this is the world-model-specific counterpart to get_system_status/get_metrics or when to prefer one over the other. The overlapping sibling names make this omission costly for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.