Fetch the current status and metrics of the world model, including consciousness proxies and ethics monitor values, from the neuromorphic simulation pipeline.
World Model Status & Metrics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it fails to do so. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what kind of response it returns, whether it has side effects, or what 'status & metrics' actually includes.
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?
The description is only five words and technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and provides no actionable information beyond the tool name.
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?
Although the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is still incomplete because it does not explain what the returned status and metrics actually are, nor how this tool differs from the numerous sibling status/metrics tools. An agent cannot confidently select and interpret the result.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 'World Model Status & Metrics' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'wm_status'. It names a resource but lacks a verb or explicit operation, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_metrics or get_system_status.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as get_system_status, get_metrics, or get_platform_status. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must guess which status/metrics tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.