Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
acpi-mcp

acpi-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

acpi_dump

Hexdump raw bytes from an ACPI table at a specified offset and length, up to 4096 bytes, to inspect firmware data.

Instructions

Hexdump a table's raw bytes (offset/length within the table, max 4096 bytes).

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>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "acpi_dump"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
indexNo
lengthNo
offsetNo
signatureYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the 4096-byte cap and that offset/length are relative to the table, but it never states that the operation is a read-only inspection or what happens when the signature does not match.

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?

A single dense sentence with the operation and its key constraint front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is compact, though 'offset/length within the table' is slightly cryptic without punctuation on each term.

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?

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition should explain how a table is identified (name, signature, index) and confirm read-only behavior. The output schema covers the return value, but the input side remains under-explained.

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 coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only glosses 'offset' and 'length' (including the 4096 max). It leaves 'name' vs 'signature' disambiguation and the role of 'index' entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool requiring both name and signature.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Hexdump a table's raw bytes', which clearly distinguishes a raw-dump operation from interpretation-oriented siblings like acpi_disassemble. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over acpi_table or acpi_disassemble, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The agent must infer that this is for raw byte inspection only.

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