Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-esp32

mcp-esp32

by 0mandrock1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fs_put

Write base64-encoded data to a file on an ESP32 board by chunking over raw REPL exchanges.

Instructions

Write a base64-encoded payload to a file on the board, chunked over several raw-REPL exchanges.

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": {
      "port": "<port>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content_base64": "<content_base64>"
    },
    "name": "fs_put"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
portYes
max_bytesNo
content_base64Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools