ASTRA Unified Research Lab MCP Server

orch_gate_config

Configure the surrogate gate that mimics Orch OR timing via epoch-quantised ignition and stochastic tie-break.

Instructions

Enable or configure the classical surrogate gate (epoch-quantised ignition with stochastic tie-break). The gate reproduces the Orch OR temporal signature only; it does not instantiate objective reduction.

Tool call template

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": "orch_gate_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enabled`	No
`epochMs`	No
`ignitionFloor`	No
`tieBandFraction`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (epoch-quantised, stochastic tie-break) and an important limitation (surrogate only, not real Orch OR). However, it does not mention side effects, persistence of configuration, or interaction with other system components.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the tool's action and subject, while the second adds a key caveat. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key limitation but lacks information on configuration effects, validation, or return values. It is adequate for a simple config tool but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly hints at parameter roles (e.g., epochMs for 'epoch-quantised', tieBandFraction for 'stochastic tie-break'). It does not explicitly explain each parameter's meaning, default, or behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Enable or configure') and resource ('classical surrogate gate'), and adds technical specificity ('epoch-quantised ignition with stochastic tie-break'). The caveat about not instantiating objective reduction distinguishes it from related Orch tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for enabling/configuring the surrogate gate. The statement that it does not instantiate objective reduction gives an exclusion, but no explicit alternatives are named among the many sibling tools (e.g., actual reduction tools).

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

Deploy Server