ASTRA Unified Research Lab MCP Server

wm_plan

Plan spike injection strategies to steer a neuromorphic simulation toward target ACM scores and firing rates. Applies cross-entropy method over a user-defined horizon to compute an optimal sequence.

Instructions

CEM Planning for Optimal Spike Injection

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "wm_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes	Target state to plan towards
`horizon`	No	Planning horizon (steps)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithm (CEM) and target (spike injection), but does not state whether the tool returns a plan, mutates system state, requires a running simulation, or has side effects.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It reads like a heading or tagline rather than an informative definition, and it omits essential operational context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested goal object, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what wm_plan returns, how it relates to inject_spikes, or what 'optimal' means in practical terms.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the goal and horizon parameters. The description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, but it does hint that goal-driven optimization is involved.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the tool as a planning operation for spike injection using CEM, which is more specific than a mere restatement of the name. It implies a distinction from execution tools like inject_spikes, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use wm_plan versus alternatives such as inject_spikes, wm_predict, or snn_step. The intended invocation context must be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server