Advance a spiking neural network simulation by running a specified number of steps, up to 1000, in the ASTRA neuromorphic research pipeline.
Advance SNN Simulation
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": "snn_step"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and only says 'Advance SNN Simulation'. It does not disclose whether this mutates simulation state, is reversible, requires any precondition, or what the return/response looks like.
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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler words. It is appropriately compact for a simple tool, though it is too terse to convey parameter semantics or effects.
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?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough: it leaves the meaning of 'steps', side effects, and the relationship to siblings unstated. An agent can take the core action but may mis-invoke the parameter or confuse it with simulation_control.
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 schema describes one parameter, 'steps', with type, default, and bounds, but the description does not explain that the value is a count of simulation steps or how it affects behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific action, 'Advance', applied to 'SNN Simulation', so an agent can tell this tool moves the simulation forward. It does not, however, contrast with the sibling simulation_control or snn_reset, which could also relate to simulation progress.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation_control or snn_reset. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints to route the agent to the correct sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.