Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
acpi-mcp

acpi-mcp

by 0xmortuex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

acpi_tables

List every ACPI table with its signature, address, length, checksum, OEM, and purpose to inspect firmware tables.

Instructions

List every table: signature, address, length, checksum, OEM, and what it's for.

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_tables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not state read-only behavior explicitly, permissions, pagination, ordering, side effects, or whether all tables are always returned.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Although some listed fields may be covered by the output schema, the sentence remains compact and appropriately sized.

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?

For a tool with one required, undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains some return content, but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics, usage guidance, or behavioral details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, required `name`, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Worse, 'List every table' suggests no filtering, leaving unclear what `name` selects or why it is mandatory.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every table.' It also names the returned fields (signature, address, length, checksum, OEM, purpose), which makes the operation concrete. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools such as acpi_table or acpi_dump.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as acpi_table for a single table or acpi_find for searching. The phrase 'List every table' only weakly implies this is an inventory-style tool.

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