BYO Server

by JasonPeng2019

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 has a clearly distinct purpose: connect/disconnect, flash, board info, state control, memory/register access, breakpoints, serial, symbol reading, and recovery. No overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., flash_firmware, read_memory), with some simple verbs (connect, halt). 'unlock_recover' is slightly inconsistent, but overall patterns are clear.
Tool Count4/5
20 tools for a debug probe server is reasonable. It covers core debug operations without being excessive, though some tools could potentially be combined.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers all essential debug operations: connect, flash, state control, memory/register R/W, breakpoints, serial I/O, symbol reading, and recovery. Minor gaps like conditional breakpoints are acceptable.
Average 3.6/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a breakpoint is 'set' but does not explain what happens when a breakpoint is hit (e.g., does the target halt?), how many can be active, or whether setting a breakpoint changes target state. The lack of side‑effect information is a significant gap for a debug tool.
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 description is very short (one sentence), but brevity comes at the cost of omitted essential details. It is front‑loaded but under‑specified, failing to serve the agent's decision‑making needs. True conciseness would pack meaningful guidance into a few words, which this does not achieve.
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?
Despite the tool having only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description omits critical context: it does not explain the behavior upon hit, the number of supported breakpoints, or whether both hardware and software types are selectable. The output schema's presence does not excuse the lack of behavioral context, making the description incomplete for a debug action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description merely repeats the parameter name ('address') without providing any semantic guidance. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., hexadecimal, decimal) or whether it's a memory address, line number, or symbol. This forces the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge, which is insufficient.
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 action ('Set') and the resource ('breakpoint') with a qualifier ('hardware/software'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_breakpoint' by naming the opposite action. However, it lacks specificity about whether the breakpoint is one-shot or persistent, and the backticks around 'address' are a stylistic choice, not informative.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'halt', 'step', or 'remove_breakpoint'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the target must be halted) or typical use cases. The description fails to inform the agent about context, such as the need to later remove or handle breakpoints.
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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Resume execution' without details on side effects, breakpoint handling, or whether the core must be in a halted state. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (4 words), but may be overly terse. It lacks any additional context that would help an agent decide to use it. It is front-loaded but underspecified.
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?
Given the complexity of core resume operations and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect on breakpoints, state transitions, or prerequisites. An output schema exists, but behavioral context 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4.
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 'Resume execution of the core' clearly states the action (resume) and the resource (execution of the core). It is specific enough to distinguish from halt or reset, but does not explicitly differentiate from step or give context on what resuming entails.
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 provided on when to use resume versus sibling tools like step, halt, or reset. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical context (e.g., after a breakpoint), or alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Halt the core' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it stops execution, if it's reversible, if it requires the core to be running). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact.
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 with a single sentence that directly states the action. No wasted words; every part earns its place.
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?
Given the complexity of halting a core (likely in a debug context) and the existence of an output schema (not provided), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the tool's effect, state transitions, and how it interacts with sibling tools like 'resume' or 'step'.
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 the description does not need to add parameter details. The description is adequate for a parameterless tool.
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 action ('Halt') and the target ('the core'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reset' and 'step' which have different effects. However, it is minimal and could be more specific about what halting entails.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'reset' or 'disconnect'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description specifies the return format (space-separated hex string), which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose any constraints (e.g., max length, alignment) or side effects, and there are no annotations to fill the gap.
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, no unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded with key information.
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 read tool with output schema, the description covers basic inputs and output. However, lacking usage guidance and differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., 'read_memory') reduces completeness.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps 'address' and 'length' to the read operation but provides no additional details about format, constraints, or defaults (e.g., address as hex string, length in bytes).
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 it reads bytes from memory starting at an address and returns them as a hex string. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'read_memory', which may have similar functionality.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_memory'. The description simply states what it does, not context for selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only discloses that values can be hex or decimal, omitting behavioral traits such as whether the target must be halted, whether the write is immediate, or any side effects on system state.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, given the lack of other content, it might be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a hardware write tool, such as the need for a halted target, potential damage if misused, or return behavior. It is incomplete for safe and correct usage.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the format of 'value' (hex or decimal), which is helpful, but provides no additional context for the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema indicates.
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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'core register', and specifies that it operates 'by name'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_core_register' (read) and 'write_memory' (different resource).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., target state) or exclusions (e.g., not for memory-mapped registers).
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 provided, and the description only states the action. It does not disclose consequences of removing a non-existent breakpoint, idempotency, or any required state (e.g., target halted).
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?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too brief for an agent to fully understand usage without additional context.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but missing details on behavior when the breakpoint does not exist or on error handling.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'address' without explaining format, valid range, or constraints. The parameter is required, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (breakpoint at address). Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like set_breakpoint.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The context is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return of the new program counter but omits important behavioral traits such as the tool's side effect of advancing execution by one instruction or any required state (e.g., halted target). This is insufficient for a debugger operation.
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, direct sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and output.
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 adequately explains the basic action and return value, and the presence of an output schema covers the return format. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) and does not clarify whether the tool modifies state, which is important for a debugger 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Single-step one instruction') and the return value ('return the new program counter'). It is specific about the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resume', 'halt', or 'reset'.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the target must be halted) or when stepping is appropriate compared to other debugger actions.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., target halted) or side effects. Adequate for a simple read but lacks detail.
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?
One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes value.
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?
Has output schema (not shown) so return info is covered. However, lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. For a simple tool with two params, it's minimally complete but could benefit from more context given many sibling tools.
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%. Description mentions elf_path and symbol_name but adds no extra meaning beyond their names. No format, constraints, or examples. For 0% coverage, baseline is 3 but with 2 parameters and no elaboration, score is 2.
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?
Description clearly states the action: resolve a symbol in an ELF file and read its 32-bit value from target memory. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_memory (raw address) and read_core_register (register).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_memory or read_core_register. No exclusions or context provided.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the reset behavior and the halt_after option, but does not mention side effects like state clearing or safety.
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?
Short, front-loaded description with two sentences that efficiently explain the tool. No unnecessary content.
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?
Minimal description covers the basic behavior and parameter, but given the existence of an output schema, return values are not needed. Could add more context about state changes.
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 description adds full meaning to the halt_after parameter beyond the schema by explaining both true and false behaviors. Schema coverage is 0% so this is valuable.
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 'Reset the target' and provides parameter details, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like halt or resume.
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?
Implies usage through parameter explanation (halt_after true/false) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use reset over other tools.
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?
Without annotations, the description adds value by clarifying that the tool never executes host commands and only writes bytes to the UART transport. However, it omits details on error handling, timeout behavior, and what 'bounded' means. Partially transparent.
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?
Four sentences, each with a clear purpose: purpose, resolution method, safety disclaimer, optional params. No fluff, though could group parameter notes more efficiently. Efficiently sized.
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 output schema exists, reducing need to describe returns. However, the description lacks guidance on baudrate and timeout semantics, and does not explain success/failure indicators. Adequate but incomplete for a 5-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description shoulders the burden. It explains 3 of 5 parameters (port, append_newline, and implicitly text with 'bounded UTF-8') but leaves baudrate and timeout_seconds unexplained. Adds moderate value beyond parameter names.
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 verb 'write' and the resource 'UART of connected board', with qualifiers like 'bounded UTF-8 text' and references to sibling tool 'read_serial' to differentiate. It precisely conveys what the tool does.
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 provides guidance for optional parameters (port override, append_newline for line-oriented input) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like write_memory or write_core_register. Usage context is implied but not directive.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It explains defaults, expected_text matching, and reset_on_open effect, but omits details on error handling, timeouts, or return format. The presence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be structured with bullet points for readability.
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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main use case but lacks details on error conditions, timeout behavior, and what the returned output contains.
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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It covers port, expected_text, and reset_on_open with meaningful context, but read_seconds and baudrate are not described beyond being defaulted from board config.
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 captures bounded UART output, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like write_serial or flash_firmware. The verb 'capture' and resource 'UART output' provide clear purpose.
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 explains when to use parameters like port, expected_text, and reset_on_open, and mentions default behavior from board config. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives to other serial-related tools.
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. It specifies that the session is closed and probe released, but omits details like safety of repeated calls or side effects on unsaved data.
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 is succinct and front-loaded, containing no extraneous information. 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?
For a zero-parameter action with an output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention that an active session is required, but the simple nature of the tool makes it acceptable.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing extra, but the absence of parameters makes extra detail unnecessary. Score baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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: closing the active debug session and releasing the probe. The verb 'close' and noun 'debug session' precisely define the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect'.
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 when the debug session should end, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or prerequisites like an active session.
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?
The description discloses the return format (hex string) but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., whether it requires halting the target or if it's a read-only operation). Since no annotations are provided, more transparency would be beneficial.
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 with two sentences, no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes examples efficiently.
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 tool complexity (single required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. However, it could mention the requirement for the target to be halted, common in debug tools.
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 schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description. The description adds concrete examples of valid register names ('pc', 'sp', 'r0', 'xpsr'), providing crucial guidance beyond the schema.
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 reads a core register by name, providing specific examples ('pc', 'sp', 'r0', 'xpsr'). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_core_register (write) and read_memory (memory, not core registers).
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 use for core registers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_memory for memory). No guidance on prerequisites like halted state 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses address and value formats (hex/decimal) and word_size options, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or whether memory is volatile/non-volatile. Adequate for a basic write operation.
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 concise with 5 lines, including clear parameter annotations in docstring style. Every sentence adds value, no redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 has 3 parameters with no enums, an output schema (though not shown), and no nested objects. The description adequately explains the parameters and purpose. Minor gap: does not mention that writing occurs on the target device memory, but this is implied by context.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it specifies that address and value can be hex (0x...) or decimal, and explains word_size as transfer size in bits with allowed values (8, 16, 32). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.
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 'Write a single value to memory' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_memory and write_core_register by specifying 'single value' and the memory context.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage via the verb 'write', but does not mention alternatives like block writes (though no write_memory_block sibling exists). The context from sibling names partially compensates.
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 full burden. It explains the effect of path (default resolution) and halt_after_reset, and mentions return value (resolved path). However, it lacks details on overall process (e.g., whether a reset occurs regardless, error conditions, or state changes). Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 concise: a one-line overview followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameters and return value well. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., board must be connected and loaded) and does not address error scenarios. Still, it provides sufficient context for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema. It explains path's default behavior (resolve default artifact) and halt_after_reset's effect on target state. Despite 0% schema coverage metric, the description directly covers both parameters thoroughly.
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 ('Flash firmware') and the resource ('through the shared target-control service layer'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., connect, reset) by specifying a unique operation. The mention of default artifact resolution adds specificity.
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 for firmware flashing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected, board config loaded). Absence of when-not or alternative references lowers the score.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'read' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether it requires the target to be halted or if it affects processor state. The description is minimal but non-contradictory.
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 with three sentences: the purpose and two parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without any filler or redundancy. The key purpose is front-loaded.
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?
Despite having no annotations, the description covers parameters adequately and the required schema output exists (so return value explanation is not needed). However, it could mention prerequisites like needing an active connection, which would improve completeness. Overall adequate for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: address format ('hex 0x... or decimal') and word_size values ('8, 16, or 32'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definition, which lacks descriptions entirely.
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 starts with 'Read a single value from memory,' clearly stating the action (read), resource (memory), and scope (single value), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory_block that read multiple values.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply use for single addresses, no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context is given. Sibling differentiation is implicit through parameter descriptions.
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 must disclose behavior. It mentions opening a session and using environment variables, but does not explain what happens if already connected, permission requirements, or the state of the target after connection (e.g., halted). This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 well-structured with a lead sentence followed by concise parameter bullet points. While slightly lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose. The front-loading of the purpose is effective.
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 description covers parameter usage well and references environment variables, but does not discuss the return value (though output schema exists) or the resulting debugging state (e.g., halted target). This leaves some contextual gaps for a tool that initiates a session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It excellently explains each parameter: unique_id (partial match, env var), target (type override, precedence), board_id (YAML loading, env var), board_config (custom path). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states 'Open a debug session to a connected probe,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disconnect' and 'flash_firmware', which handle different operations.
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 provides clear context on when to omit parameters (e.g., 'Omit when exactly one probe is attached'), but does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. It implicitly establishes connect as the first step before other debug actions.
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 fully covers behavioral traits: it is destructive, the confirm parameter controls execution, and unsupported recover_mode causes deterministic failure. This adds useful safety context, though it does not detail post-execution board state.
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 sentences, each adding value. The main action is first, followed by key behaviors. No redundant or extraneous text.
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 single-parameter tool with output schema, the description adequately covers parameter behavior and failure modes. It addresses board config validation but does not explain potential success outcomes or return values. Still, it is fairly complete given the simplicity.
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 schema provides only a default for 'confirm' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds essential meaning: when confirm is false, the tool refuses without action; it must be true to proceed. This significantly supplements the schema.
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 executes the recover/unlock path for a connected board, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other hardware operations like connect, disconnect, or flash.
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 provides context about destructive nature and parameter behavior but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies this is for recovery/unlock scenarios but lacks explicit usage boundaries.
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?
The description discloses the return value contents and notably includes behavior when connect was called without a board_id (raw-target mode), providing a special case. Since annotations are absent, the description adequately covers behavioral expectations.
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, the first clearly states the purpose, the second details contents and a special case. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded.
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?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's function and the exceptional case. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the facts returned (target, MCU, etc.), beyond what the empty schema provides.
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 returns board config facts, listing specific items like pyOCD target, MCU, recover policy, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (connect, read_memory, etc.) by focusing on configuration retrieval.
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?
Usage is implied by describing what the tool does, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context suggests it should be called after a session is opened, but alternatives are not discussed.
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 full burden. It discloses the return value and examples, but does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or error conditions. For a simple getter, this is adequate but could be enhanced with a note that it is safe and non-destructive.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, and an output schema presumably documents the return type, the description is complete. It provides examples of the return value and fits well within the context of sibling tools that modify core state.
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, zero parameters earns a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is 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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'current core run state', with examples of possible values (HALTED, RUNNING, RESET). It effectively distinguishes this read-only tool from sibling tools that modify state (e.g., halt, resume, reset).
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?
While the description implies this tool is for reading state rather than modifying it, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, relying on context from sibling tools.
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:

[![BYO-Firmware-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JasonPeng2019/BYO-Firmware-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JasonPeng2019/BYO-Firmware-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![BYO-Firmware-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JasonPeng2019/BYO-Firmware-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JasonPeng2019/BYO-Firmware-MCP)

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/JasonPeng2019/BYO-Firmware-MCP'

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