flashgate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

probe

Verify a board's running firmware by sending console commands and asserting live responses from selected checks, including register readbacks; no rebuild or reflash needed.

Instructions

Exercise the firmware ALREADY RUNNING on the board with its defined probes: each probe sends console commands and asserts on the board's answers — including live register readbacks (e.g. the timer value actually driving an LED). No rebuild, no reflash.

names picks specific probes (valid names are in board_info's
"probes" list); omit it or pass [] to run all. Probes need the
console UART: without it the result is incomplete +
CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE — never a pass. failed + PROBE_FAILED means an
assertion did not hold; data.log shows the exact step, the board's
last response, and which value was off.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board`	No	Path to the board profile YAML (e.g. boards/apollo-h743.yaml). Omit to use the server's --board argument, else the default search path.
`names`	No	Probe names to run, taken from board_info's "probes" list. Omit or pass [] to run every defined probe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`code`	Yes
`data`	No
`policy`	No
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`evidence`	No
`warnings`	No
`exit_code`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false to go on, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the console UART dependency, states that missing UART yields CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE and 'never a pass,' decodes failed + PROBE_FAILED as a failed assertion, and points to data.log for the exact step and board response. It even discloses that live register readbacks occur.

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?

Densely front-loaded: capability first, parameter behavior second, failure semantics last. Every sentence is informative, though the names/omit-[] sentence partly duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, yet the description still covers the ambiguous outcome cases (CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE, PROBE_FAILED) that an agent must interpret. Nothing needed to call this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description for 'names' already says it draws from board_info's probes list and that omit/[] runs all, so the description largely restates structured data. The cross-reference to board_info is mildly useful but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('exercise the firmware ALREADY RUNNING ... with its defined probes') and immediately distinguishes itself from build/flash siblings via 'No rebuild, no reflash.' It also names the mechanism (sends console commands, asserts on answers) so an agent knows exactly what class of operation this is.

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?

Gives clear context for use: probes run against already-flashed firmware, names selects subsets from board_info's "probes" list, and omit/[] runs all. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings (verify, console_send/console_read), leaving some routing to inference, but the when-to-use picture is solid.

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

Deploy Server