Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Server for Segger RTT via J-Link

MCP Server for Segger RTT via J-Link

by ForeverJin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

rtt_write

Write string data to an RTT down-buffer channel on a target device via J-Link. The target must be running RTT with a down-buffer listener.

Instructions

Write data to RTT down-buffer (host -> device). The target device must be running RTT with a down-buffer listener.

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "rtt_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesString data to send to the target device.
channelNoRTT channel to write to (default: 0).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes data (a destructive/mutating operation) and requires a specific condition. However, it lacks details on error handling, return values, or blocking behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has 2 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and precondition but does not specify return values or behavior on failure, leaving some gaps for complex use cases.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 action ('write data'), direction ('host -> device'), and target ('RTT down-buffer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rtt_read (reads data) or rtt_clear (clears buffer).

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: the target device must be running RTT with a down-buffer listener. This gives clear guidance on when the tool can be used, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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