ASTRA MCP Server

simulation_control

Start, stop, or retrieve the current status of a bio-hybrid neuromorphic simulation pipeline, enabling direct control over its execution.

Instructions

Simulation Control

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "simulation_control"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not say whether start/stop mutate simulation state, whether status is read-only, or whether commands have side effects or prerequisites.

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?

The description is only two words, which is concise but not effectively structured. It reads as a title and provides no front-loaded information that helps an agent decide to invoke the tool.

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

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that controls simulation lifecycle, the description is far too incomplete. There is no output schema, no annotation coverage, and no explanation of command effects, return behavior, or failure conditions.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name "command" and its enum values. The enum provides some self-documentation, but the description itself does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 is exactly "Simulation Control", which restates the tool name. It does not state what action the tool performs, what simulation resource it affects, or what outcome the commands produce.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_status, snn_step, snn_reset, or get_platform_status. An agent would have to infer all usage context from the command enum alone.

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