Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
acpi-mcp

acpi-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

acpi_disassemble

Disassemble a DSDT/SSDT AML table into readable ASL source with iasl -d to inspect ACPI devices, methods, and power-off behavior.

Instructions

Disassemble a DSDT/SSDT's AML to ASL source with ACPICA's iasl -d.

Needs iasl on PATH (Debian/Ubuntu: apt install acpica-tools; macOS: brew install acpica; Windows: the ACPICA release from intel.com/acpi). acpi_table already lists devices and _S5_ without iasl.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "acpi_disassemble"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
indexNo
max_charsNo
signatureNoDSDT

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key hidden trait: this shells out to an external binary and fails without iasl on PATH, with per-OS install commands. It omits whether the ASL is returned inline or written to a .dsl file on disk, and whether elevated privileges are needed, which are the remaining meaningful unknowns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability and the sibling contrast lead, and the install guidance is compact parenthetical reference material rather than prose. The three-line OS install breakdown is slightly bulky for a tool description but is genuinely actionable, not filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the dependency story is well covered. What is missing is commensurate with the complexity of a four-parameter, zero-coverage schema: signature/index/max_chars selection and truncation behavior are unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong.

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% and the description says nothing about any of the four parameters. The semantics of `index` (which table instance), `signature` (DSDT vs SSDT selection), and especially `max_chars` (default 40000, presumably truncation) are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess at the most consequential knob for a large AML dump.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ("Disassemble a DSDT/SSDT's AML to ASL source") and names the underlying engine (`iasl -d`). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling acpi_table, which "already lists devices and \_S5_ without iasl," so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule against acpi_table (use this only when you need full ASL and iasl is available) and states the prerequisite for each platform. It stops short of saying when not to disassemble at all (e.g., cost/size limits), but the alternative is named concretely.

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