Skip to main content
Glama
markuskreitzer

PicoScope MCP Server

by markuskreitzer
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

stop_streaming

Stop data acquisition streaming from a PicoScope oscilloscope and receive a summary of captured signal data.

Instructions

Stop streaming data acquisition.

Returns: Dictionary containing stop status and summary of captured data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/picoscope_mcp/tools/acquisition.py:152-160 (handler)
    The MCP tool handler function for 'stop_streaming'. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() and defines the tool's execution logic, currently stubbed as not implemented.
    @mcp.tool()
def stop_streaming() -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Stop streaming data acquisition.

    Returns:
        Dictionary containing stop status and summary of captured data.
    """
    # TODO: Implement streaming stop
    return {"status": "not_implemented"}
  • src/picoscope_mcp/server.py:15-19 (registration)
    Registration of all tool sets, including acquisition tools (containing stop_streaming) by calling register_acquisition_tools(mcp).
    register_discovery_tools(mcp)
register_configuration_tools(mcp)
register_acquisition_tools(mcp)
register_analysis_tools(mcp)
register_advanced_tools(mcp)
  • src/picoscope_mcp/device_manager.py:505-517 (helper)
    Supporting method in PicoScopeManager class to stop streaming on the device. Intended to be used by the tool handler.
    def stop_streaming(self) -> bool:
    """Stop streaming mode.

    Returns:
        True if successful, False otherwise.
    """
    if not self.is_connected():
        return False

    # TODO: Implement streaming stop
    # Call ps*Stop

    return True

Tool Definition Quality

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a dictionary with stop status and data summary, which adds some value beyond the basic action. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this operation is safe (non-destructive), if it requires specific device states, or potential side effects like resource cleanup, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with two sentences that directly address the tool's action and return value. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text or ambiguity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at the return structure, but without annotations, it misses behavioral context like safety or prerequisites. The output schema likely details the return dictionary, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further, but overall completeness is limited.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information about inputs. It focuses instead on the return value, which is relevant given the output schema exists.

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 states the tool's purpose with the specific verb 'stop' and resource 'streaming data acquisition', making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_streaming' and 'stop_signal_generator' by focusing on data acquisition rather than signal generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that streaming must be active via 'start_streaming'), exclusions, or contextual dependencies. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/markuskreitzer/picoscope_mcp'

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