mcp-serial

by HumbertoBernal

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct serial-port operation: open/close/status/list are lifecycle, write/read/read_until/query/tail/clear_buffer handle data flow in clearly separated ways, and reset_device/set_control_lines cover control-line actions. The descriptions explicitly call out the consumption-vs-peek and reply-vs-no-reply distinctions, so an agent should not misselect.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow verb_noun naming (open_port, list_ports, clear_buffer), but several are bare verbs (write, read, query, tail) and port_status uses a noun phrase instead of a verb. The mix is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Twelve tools is a well-scoped size for a serial-port server. Each operation has a distinct role and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers the full serial workflow: enumeration, open/close/status, raw write, buffered read, pattern waits, request/response queries, monitoring without consuming, buffer clearing, device reset, and manual control-line control. No major missing operation is apparent.
Average 3.8/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state output format, filtering, permissions, or side effects. The note about preferring /dev/cu.* over /dev/tty.* on macOS is a useful platform-specific behavior, but alone it does not provide significant transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is reasonably brief and front-loaded with the main action, but it includes malformed trailing text that appears to be an accidental copy of sibling names. Every sentence should earn its place; the trailing corruption and low-value generic sentence reduce the score.
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?
For a no-argument list tool, the description covers the core action and adds useful field-level identification clues plus a macOS selection hint. However, output schema exists but is not shown, so return-value format is not described in the text; overall it is minimally viable for selecting and invoking this tool.
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, so parameter semantics are fully satisfied. The description even adds value by explaining how to interpret the fields that will be returned (description, manufacturer, vid/pid) to identify the correct port.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description appears to be present; however, the text is truncated and garbled at the end ('...is_clear_buffer' from a sibling list spills into the description). It does not provide a clear statement of the tool's purpose. A one-sentence generic description like 'List serial ports' is further undercut by the corrupted trailing text.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usable context is embedded in field-specific hints for identifying boards, which is post-selection guidance, not invocation reasoning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'consume' adds some behavioral meaning by implying data is drained from the buffer. However, there are no annotations, and the description omits important behavior such as blocking/timeout semantics, whether data is removed from the device buffer, and how this interacts with clear_buffer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with an efficient parenthetical list of examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, though it is too sparse to cover the behavioral and usage context needed.
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?
Even with a rich schema and output schema present, the description leaves a major gap in helping the agent choose between read, read_until, tail, and query. With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining buffer consumption and blocking behavior, which it does not fulfill.
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?
The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the types of data returned; it does not compensate for or add to the schema explanations.
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 states a specific action ('Read and consume buffered data') on a clear resource ('the device') and gives concrete examples of what that data may be. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like read_until, tail, and query.
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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of read_until, tail, query, or clear_buffer. The phrase 'buffered data' implies a usage context, but the description never states exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' plus the listed metrics communicates a read-only status operation, which is useful context. However, it does not mention whether the tool errors on unknown ports, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or what exact shape the status information takes.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target, and the three key output aspects. Every word contributes value and nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: it reports on open ports and names the metric categories returned. The only notable omission is usage context, but that is already penalized under usage guidelines, and the output schema covers return details.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the lone 'port' parameter is already documented as 'A specific open port, or omit for all open ports.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Show'), a resource ('open ports'), and the meaningful details it returns (byte counters, buffered bytes, disconnect errors). It is clear enough to be distinguished from action-oriented siblings like open_port or write, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_ports, so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent has to infer that this is a status/diagnostic read, and there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when list_ports or read would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what lines are set but does not explain side effects, what happens when dtr/rts are null or omitted, whether the port must already be open, or how this interacts with subsequent reads/writes/resets. The word 'manually' adds some context but not enough behavioral 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core operation appears first, and the use-case context is compactly parenthesized. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the definition is mostly adequate. However, behavioral gaps around null semantics and side effects, as well as the absence of explicit routing away from reset_device, leave the agent without enough context to confidently choose and invoke this tool in all scenarios.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the manual-line-control context; port examples and high/low semantics are already in the schema. It neither improves nor harms parameter clarity.
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 action ('Set'), the exact resource ('DTR / RTS modem control lines'), and the manual nature of the operation. The parenthetical context ('bootloader entry, custom reset circuits') reinforces the purpose and helps distinguish this low-level tool from higher-level operations like reset_device.
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 description gives useful context for when this tool might be used, such as bootloader entry or custom reset circuits, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like reset_device, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance that tail line history is kept and that buffered unread data is discarded, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., port must be open) or whether the operation is destructive beyond the buffer.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the relevant caveat about tail history. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 the simple one-parameter shape, an output schema for return values, and a clear description, the definition is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and the tail interaction. The only minor gap is not stating that the port must be open, but this is low-risk for such a simple tool.
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 description coverage is 100% and the port parameter is thoroughly described in the schema with examples and accepted URL formats. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a 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?
States a specific verb ('Discard') and resource ('buffered unread data on a port'), and adds a clarifying caveat that tail line history is kept, which helps distinguish it from reset_device or close_port. The action is unambiguous.
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 description implies usage: use this when you want to discard buffered unread data. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with sibling tools such as reset_device or read. The context is clear but entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the main side effect — closing the port and releasing it for other programs — but is silent on failure modes, such as closing an already-closed or never-opened port, and on whether buffered data is flushed. The core behavior is clear, yet edge behavior is uncovered.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with every clause earning its place: 'opened with open_port' scopes it, and 'release it for other programs' explains the why. No fluff.
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 the low complexity (one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description covers the tool's role and effect adequately. The only missing piece is error behavior, which is minor for such a simple companion tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the port parameter is already fully documented with examples and URL variants. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and at full coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('close') and resource ('a port opened with open_port'), plus the purpose ('release it for other programs'). This clearly inverts open_port and stays distinct from read/write/port_status siblings.
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 phrasing 'opened with open_port' supplies clear context: it applies to a port previously opened by its counterpart tool. It doesn't enumerate exclusion conditions or list alternative tools, but the pairing with open_port leaves little ambiguity about when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the one-call request/response behavior, but doesn't mention blocking behavior, timeouts, buffer clearing, or potential side effects on the device. It is honest but thin.
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 short sentences with no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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?
Between the 100% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The focus on request/response use provides enough context for correct invocation; the only missing piece is guidance on edge cases or sibling differentiation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the individual parameter meanings are already fully documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond indicating that a command is sent and a reply returned.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Send a command and return its reply in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from write/read-style siblings, and the request/response examples make its function concrete and unmistakable.
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?
'Best for request/response devices' plus examples like AT modems and PING->PONG gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the key trait that write does not wait for a reply, but it omits other important details such as requiring the port to be open, whether transmission is immediate, what happens on failure, and whether any output is produced.
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 sentence with no redundant words; the core behavior and the routing alternative are front-loaded. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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 schema and output schema cover the parameter mechanics and return shape, and the description covers the fire-and-forget mode. However, for a hardware write operation with no annotations, a prerequisite such as 'open the port first' is missing, and error conditions are not addressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond framing the payload as raw bytes, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 states a concrete operation: 'Send raw bytes' with an explicit no-reply mode, and it distinguishes itself from 'query' in the same sentence. Even though the serial-port object is not named directly, the sibling set and port schema make the resource 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?
It gives a clear when-to-use rule: use write when no reply is expected, and use query for request/response. This is direct routing guidance to one of the most relevant sibling tools.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses the blocking-until-pattern behavior and the timeout contract ('returns whatever arrived, with matched=false'). It omits edge cases like an unopened port or buffer consumption, but the core runtime behavior is well covered.
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, front-loaded with the core wait-and-return behavior and closed with the timeout contract. Every clause adds useful information and there is no 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?
Essential behavior is fully described: what it waits for, what it returns, and what happens on timeout. It does not mention prerequisites such as an already-open port, but the port parameter and sibling tools like open_port/port_status make that context available.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only pattern examples and does not explain port, regex, or timeout semantics beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but not enhanced.
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 ('Wait') and a concrete resource ('until a pattern appears'), then defines the return as 'everything up to and including it.' It also gives concrete examples of patterns ('OK', 'ready>', 'Temperature:'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from a plain read or tail.
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 clearly frames the tool as a blocking, pattern-terminated read and notes the timeout fallback, so an agent knows when this is the right call. It does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the mechanism, the side effect of rebooting, the return value, and a hardware compatibility limitation. It could add more about port availability during reset, but it is reasonably transparent.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action, mechanism, return behavior, and limitation are all front-loaded efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key caveat about board wiring. It does not mention whether the port must already be open, which would be useful, but this is a minor gap.
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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema is complete. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reboots the board, explains the mechanism (pulsing DTR/RTS), and states the return behavior (boot output). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishable from siblings like set_control_lines or write.
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 a clear usage condition: it only works on boards that wire DTR/RTS to reset, and notes that most USB dev boards do. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the prerequisite is stated clearly.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important behavioral trait: it peeks without consuming the read buffer. It does not mention prerequisites like requiring an open port, but the non-destructive, read-only nature is clearly conveyed.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical use case that earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, has a complete input schema, and an output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. The only meaningful gap is not explicitly stating that the port must already be open, but the read-buffer terminology and sibling tools make this reasonably inferable.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the word 'lines' aligns with the 'lines' parameter but adds no new meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Peek') and resource ('last lines received on a port'), and immediately clarifies a distinguishing behavior: it does NOT consume the read buffer. This clearly separates it from read/read_until/query without needing to open the schema.
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 second sentence gives a clear context for when to use it: checking what a device has been printing while doing other things. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: idempotency, reopen-on-different-settings, status return, buffering, and persistence until close_port are all stated explicitly.
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?
Three compact sentences front-load the core operation, then add the idempotency and lifecycle caveats. No filler or 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 stateful open operation with a fully self-documenting schema and an output schema, this is complete: the agent knows what it does, when it is safe to call again, and how the port lifecycle ends. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the generic phrase 'same settings,' so the baseline 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 names a specific operation (open a serial port) and the resource, and immediately states the consequence (start buffering everything it sends). This cleanly separates it from siblings like close_port, port_status, and write.
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?
It gives clear lifecycle context: the port remains open until close_port, and an already-open port with different settings is closed and reopened. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use is unambiguous.
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:

[![mcp-serial MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HumbertoBernal/mcp-serial/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HumbertoBernal/mcp-serial)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-serial MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HumbertoBernal/mcp-serial/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HumbertoBernal/mcp-serial)

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/HumbertoBernal/mcp-serial'

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