micrOSMCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct role, but list_devices and discover_devices both show device inventories, and search_devices and discover_commands both surface command signatures. The descriptions clarify the differences (known vs. live scan, indexed vs. live query), so selection should be reliable.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_devices, discover_commands, discover_devices, run_command, search_devices, set_device_note). The two discover_* tools are differentiated by their object, maintaining clarity.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a device management server, covering discovery, inventory, command lookup, execution, and note-taking without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of interacting with micrOS devices: discovering devices on the network, listing known devices, searching for capabilities, learning command signatures, executing commands, and annotating device context. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.
Average 4.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
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 adds useful context about scoping (all vs. matching devices) and authentication (password). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. This is a notable gap given the lack of annotations.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes specific, useful details without any fluff. Each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior efficiently.
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?
The description explains the tool's purpose and usage well, but it lacks detail on return values or output format, which is especially important given there is no output schema. It also does not distinguish itself from list_devices/discover_devices beyond mentioning search_devices. Overall, it is adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description restates the deviceTag behavior (omitting it inspects all, providing UID/IP/name fragment inspects matching) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Learn which modules and command signatures are available on live micrOS devices.' It uses a specific verb ('Learn') and resource ('modules and command signatures'), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_devices by focusing on command discovery rather than device discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this after discovering a device, after its firmware or modules change, or when `search_devices` does not show an expected capability.' It also gives scoping instructions (omit deviceTag for all devices, provide UID/IP/name fragment for matching) and notes when to use the password parameter, making it clear when and how to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read vs. write behavior, explains that omitting note or using an empty string reads the current note, and details the difference between replace and append modes. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential side effects beyond overwriting in replace mode.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without repetition or fluff. It is compact and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors and parameter semantics well. It omits the return format when reading, but the intent is implied. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap that keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that deviceTag can be a UID, IP, or name fragment, and it clarifies the behavior of the note parameter (omit/empty for read) and mode parameter (replace vs append). This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 a specific verb-resource combination: 'Read or save helpful context about one micrOS device.' It provides concrete examples of the content (location, hardware, purpose) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_devices or run_command by focusing specifically on device notes.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for reading or saving device context. It explains how to target a device and the modes for updating, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that commands act on a live device, may change state, config writes are rejected, and other commands are not automatically safe. This provides strong safety-relevant context.
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?
Well-structured with clear examples and sections. Every sentence adds value, covering syntax, prerequisites, and safety without unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, syntax variations, safety constraints, and behavioral expectations thoroughly. No significant gaps remain.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful syntax examples, explains the `<a>` separator and array pipeline behavior, and confirms deviceTag can be a UID, name, or IP, going beyond the schema's field descriptions.
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?
Clearly states 'Run a micrOS command or a sequential command pipeline on one live device.' This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes the execution tool from sibling discovery/listing tools.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call `search_devices` before using the tool to confirm the exact device and command signature. It also cautions to use the least disruptive command, but does not explicitly contrast with all sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect of feature learning ('By default, the tool also learns the commands available on discovered devices') and explains networkPrefix behavior. However, it stops short of detailing network impact or permission requirements, so it's not fully rich but is solid.
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 three sentences: purpose, usage scenarios, and key behavioral toggle. Every sentence earns its place, concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical decisions (when to use, networkPrefix, refreshFeatures) while other parameters are well documented in the schema. Missing return-value details but adequate for selection and invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to key parameters by explaining that omitting networkPrefix scans the active local network and setting refreshFeatures to false avoids feature learning. This goes beyond the schema's literal field descriptions.
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 tool's function: 'Find live micrOS devices on a local IPv4 /24 network.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of device discovery distinguishes it from siblings like list_devices and search_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this during initial setup, when a device is missing from list_devices, or when its IP address may have changed.' It also contrasts with list_devices and gives a when-not for refreshFeatures, offering clear contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses search scope, fuzziness semantics, status filtering, and fallback behavior. It does not describe the exact result envelope or explicitly state read-only safety, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's domain, parameter choices, use timing, and fallback paths. The only gap is a precise description of the returned data structure, but the description states that results include devices and modules with function signatures and documentation, which is sufficient for invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing searchable fields and explaining fuzziness levels (0 literal, 1 conservative typo, 2 broader) and when status is relevant. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the right micrOS device and command syntax before run_command.' It enumerates searchable attributes (UID, name, IP, note, module, function, capability) and distinguishes itself from sibling discovery/command tools by focusing on searching cached data to prepare for execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is explicit: use this before run_command. It names alternatives (discover_devices and discover_commands) for missing devices/capabilities and directs the user to search again after discovery. It also clarifies when status filtering matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not check online status ('without checking whether they are currently online') and implies a read-only listing ('Show a quick inventory'). While it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-freedom or permissions, the nature of a read-only inventory is clear, so only a small gap remains.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and usage guidance is concise. The format is ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output content, and distinguishing usage. The sibling distinction adds necessary context. No important information is missing.
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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because there are none to describe. No deductions are needed.
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 tool's function: 'Show a quick inventory of known micrOS devices' with specific fields listed. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_devices`, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this to see what devices are known without checking whether they are currently online.' It also names the alternative tool and its use cases: 'Use `search_devices` when selecting a command target, finding a capability, or inspecting command signatures.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![micrOSMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BxNxM/micrOSMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BxNxM/micrOSMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![micrOSMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BxNxM/micrOSMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BxNxM/micrOSMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/BxNxM/micrOSMCP'

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