check_ethics
Evaluate ethical compliance of neuromorphic simulations by checking neural welfare and IRB standards for bio-hybrid consciousness proxies.
Instructions
IRB Neural Welfare Check
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Evaluate ethical compliance of neuromorphic simulations by checking neural welfare and IRB standards for bio-hybrid consciousness proxies.
IRB Neural Welfare Check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The tool's impact is completely opaque.
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, which is excessively terse. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, failing to provide meaningful 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the tool's return value and usage scenarios. It does not, leaving users uncertain about what the tool provides.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 'IRB Neural Welfare Check' suggests an ethics/vetting function for neural systems, but is vague. It lacks a specific verb or explanation of what action is performed, making it hard to distinguish from related tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/christophejlegros-lgtm/ASTRA-Unified-ResearchLab-MCP-v2.7'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server