mcp-esp32

by 0mandrock1

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: port discovery, board info, flashing, REPL execution, filesystem operations, and serial monitoring. There is no overlap between them, and even related tools like fs_ls/fs_get/fs_put are differentiated by operation type.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming patterns are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_ports, flash_firmware, tail_serial), some are prefix-based (fs_ls, fs_get, fs_put), and repl_exec inverts the usual order. While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the API slightly less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of managing ESP32 boards. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow (discovery, flashing, code execution, filesystem, serial) without bloat or trivial tools.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core lifecycle: identify port, get board info, flash firmware, execute code, and manage files. The only notable gap is lack of a delete/rename filesystem operation, but this is a minor omission that doesn't compromise the primary workflows.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, timeout behavior, or any side effects. The description is purely output-oriented without addressing safety or interaction with the device.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key output categories and clearly referencing the parameter. No wasted words or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially fulfills the need to explain return values by listing the fields. However, it lacks structure/format details, error handling, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if no board is connected). It is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It does so by indicating that 'port' is the target device whose info is retrieved, and it clarifies what data will be returned for that port. This adds meaning beyond the minimal 'Port' title in the schema, though it doesn't provide format or example values.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving board information (chip family, flash size, MAC address, MicroPython version) for a specified port. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_ports, flash_firmware, and fs_* operations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing a connected device or a valid port. The only implied context is that it operates on a 'port', but this is also the parameter name and schema title, adding no practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 merely states the action without mentioning that it's read-only, requires a connection to the board, or describes the return format. It adds little beyond the name, though it does not contradict annotations since none exist.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and efficient with zero waste.
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?
The tool is simple and has no output schema, but the description omits practical details like prerequisites, return value format, and usage context. With no annotations to fill gaps, it's minimally viable but leaves questions for the agent.
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%, yet the description does not explain the path or port parameters. While param names are intuitive, the description fails to specify acceptable values, defaults, or the role of port, adding no semantic value over the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'directory on the board's filesystem', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_get/fs_put for file transfer and list_ports for port discovery.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use fs_ls versus alternatives; it relies on the purpose being self-evident. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, making the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the write is chunked over raw-REPL exchanges, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or prerequisites like board connectivity, leaving gaps.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Write', and contains no filler or repetition. Every word adds value.
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?
With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description captures the core purpose and key behavior (chunking), but it omits important context such as parameter details for port and max_bytes, return behavior, and failure modes. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 explain parameters. It indirectly covers content_base64 ('base64-encoded payload') and path ('file'), but port and max_bytes are not explained. The 'chunked' hint only vaguely relates to max_bytes, failing to compensate for the coverage gap on two of four parameters.
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 action ('Write'), the resource ('a base64-encoded payload to a file on the board'), and the scope ('on the board'). It distinguishes from siblings like fs_get (reads) and fs_ls (lists) by explicitly indicating a write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool is for writing files to the board. The mention of 'chunked over several raw-REPL exchanges' implies it is suited for large payloads and handles transfer mechanics. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that stdout/stderr/exception are returned separately, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects of arbitrary code execution, prerequisites like device connection, or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every part—action, target, mechanism, and output result—is packed meaningfully, earning a high rating.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and output separation, but it leaves out important details such as how to identify the port (though sibling list_ports exists), timeout behavior, and connection prerequisites. It is adequate but could be more complete by referencing sibling tools or clarifying expected behaviors.
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. It gives meaning to 'code' and 'port' by stating 'Run `code` on `port`', but adds no detail about valid formats or constraints. The 'timeout_s' parameter is not mentioned at all, and the description does not sufficiently explain parameter values beyond restating names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('`code` on `port`'), and specifies the mechanism ('over MicroPython's raw REPL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ports and fs_ls, which handle ports and filesystem operations rather than code execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to execute Python code on a MicroPython device via raw REPL. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that content is base64-encoded and that files over max_bytes are refused, offering specific behavioral traits beyond just 'read'. However, it omits error handling, path format, and whether any side effects exist.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence—'Read a file from the board'—followed by two crucial behavioral details. Every phrase earns its place, with zero wasted words.
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?
The core read operation and encoding are stated, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover more. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, error scenarios, and its relationship to sibling tools like fs_ls and fs_put, making it minimally viable but with 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 for parameter meaning. It only references max_bytes indirectly ('refuses files over max_bytes') and provides no semantics for 'path' or 'port', leaving half the parameters undefined.
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 uses 'Read a file from the board' – a specific verb and resource – which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fs_ls, fs_put, and repl_exec. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for reading files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies the use case but doesn't discuss not using it for listing (fs_ls) or writing (fs_put).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 a 30-second time limit and the fact that it bypasses the REPL protocol, offering some behavioral context. Yet it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how output is delivered, or any side effects, leaving gaps.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key constraint. It could mention the output format or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward capture tool within a device tool suite.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'seconds' by mentioning 'up to 30 seconds', but does not clarify the 'port' parameter beyond its self-explanatory name. It does not mention the default value for seconds, which the schema provides, so coverage remains partial.
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 uses the specific verb 'Capture' and clearly identifies the resource as 'raw serial output', distinguishing it from REPL-based operations. The phrase 'without going through the REPL protocol' explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool repl_exec.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for capturing raw serial data when REPL protocol is not desired, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, this description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals progress reporting at least every 5%, cancellation support, and the erase flow requiring confirm_erase=True. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects or prerequisites.
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 the primary action in the first and additional behavioral details in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the safety confirmation, and progress/cancellation behavior. It doesn't mention prerequisites like bootloader mode or return values, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that firmware_path is written to port, and it explains the dependency between erase and confirm_erase. This compensates well for the bare schema, though it doesn't detail every parameter independently.
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 begins with 'Write `firmware_path` to `port`', a specific verb and resource combination that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ports, board_info, and fs_* operations by focusing on firmware flashing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of writing firmware to a port is clear, and the sibling list shows alternatives, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the heuristic nature of chip identification ('best-guess'), which is a valuable reliability caveat. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but a listing operation is implicitly non-destructive.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and key caveat. Every word adds value, with no repetition or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema and no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and the notable 'best-guess' caveat. It could be slightly more explicit about typical use cases, but it is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('serial ports'), and adds specific scope ('including the simulator') and a notable feature ('best-guess chip identification'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like board_info and flash_firmware, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'including the simulator' provides clear context that this tool is intended for enumerating both physical and simulated port environments. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings in a development workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-esp32 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0mandrock1/mcp-esp32/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0mandrock1/mcp-esp32)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-esp32 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0mandrock1/mcp-esp32/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0mandrock1/mcp-esp32)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0mandrock1/mcp-esp32'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server