esp-runtime-mcp

reset_device

Hard-reset the chip through the RTS-to-EN auto-reset circuit to boot the application rather than enter download mode.

Instructions

Hard-reset the chip via the RTS->EN auto-reset circuit (app boot, not download mode).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reset_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`baud`	No
`port`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the physical mechanism (RTS->EN toggling) and the resulting boot mode, which tells an agent the device will restart into the application rather than a bootloader. It stops short of stating whether the serial connection is disturbed, whether the operation can fail or needs a live port, or what state is lost on reset.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and immediately qualifying it with the mechanism and mode. Nothing to trim.

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 presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, and the description adequately frames the operation itself. However, for a hardware-mutating tool with no annotations and two completely undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks the information needed to decide what to pass for `port`/`baud`.

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 description coverage is 0% for both `baud` and `port`, and the description mentions neither. An agent gets no indication of whether these should be supplied, what a baud rate means for a hardware reset line, or whether omitting them falls back to an auto-detected port. This is the definition's largest gap.

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?

"Hard-reset the chip" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description names the exact mechanism (RTS->EN auto-reset circuit) plus the mode it targets (app boot, not download mode). Nothing about the intent is ambiguous, and it is clearly distinguishable from the read/analysis siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical "app boot, not download mode" is a genuine scoping exclusion, but there is no guidance on prerequisites (does a port need to be open first, should list_serial_ports be called to discover it) or on when to prefer reset over other recovery actions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server