Simulate quantum circuits of up to 20 qubits locally without IBM authentication or charges, then measure every qubit at the end.
Simulate up to 20 qubits locally without IBM authentication or charges. Measure every qubit at end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| shots | No | ||
| circuit | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 20-qubit practical ceiling (tighter than the schema's 256 maximum) and that all qubits are measured at the end. It says nothing about shots/seed effects on results, but the key operational limits are disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the capability bound and the auth/cost constraint come first, with the measurement behavior trailing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The 20-qubit bound is the crucial missing piece the schema cannot express (its max is 256), and the description supplies it; only the seed/shots semantics remain lightly covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description would need to carry parameter meaning. It does hint at num_qubits ("up to 20 qubits") and at the terminal measurement behavior, but neither seed nor shots is mentioned, and the circuit/gate structure is left entirely to the schema's enum and nested description.
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?
"Simulate up to 20 qubits locally" gives a specific verb and resource plus a hard capability bound, and "without IBM authentication or charges" implicitly separates it from the quantum_run_sampler / quantum_run_estimator siblings that presumably hit IBM backends. An agent can pick this tool without opening any sibling schema.
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?
The phrase "without IBM authentication or charges" establishes a clear selection context: use this when you want local, free, auth-free execution. It stops short of naming the alternative (quantum_run_sampler) and stating when that one is required, so the routing signal is strong but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.