J-Link RTT Viewer MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

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 operation (connect, disconnect, flash, memory read/write, RTT read/write, logging, reset, device info) with no overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case naming (e.g., read_memory, write_rtt) with no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools is well-scoped for a J-Link/RTT debugger, covering essential operations without being excessive or minimal.
Completeness4/5
Core operations (connect, flash, memory R/W, RTT R/W, logging, reset) are covered, but minor gaps like erase or verify exist.
Average 3.6/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 31 commits 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
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions starting recording and returning a status JSON, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, performance impact), required state (e.g., must be connected), or relationship to other tools like set_rtt_channel.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence is relevant. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 one parameter, an output schema exists (though not shown here), and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks completeness in terms of required prior steps or potential impact, making it just adequate for 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?
The description explains the log_dir parameter as 'log directory, default logs', adding meaning beyond the schema which only shows the default. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description compensates minimally but adequately for a single parameter.
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 tool starts recording RTT data to a file. It uses the verb 'start' and specifies the resource 'log recording' of RTT data. It is distinct from siblings like stop_log_recording, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., need connection or channel setup) or when not to use it. The description only explains what it does, not the context.
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 only states the basic action and return value. It does not disclose any side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, or error conditions.
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 short and clear, but it could be structured better with more details. It is concise but lacks elaboration.
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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the action and return. However, it misses context like prerequisites (e.g., must be recording) and error handling.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 3 applies as description adds no param info, 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 tool stops recording RTT data to file, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'start_log_recording' by being the inverse operation.
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 'start_log_recording' or other management tools. No prerequisites or context about when to stop recording.
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 burden. It describes a read operation ('读取') which is inherently non-destructive, but does not explicitly state safety, prerequisites, or side effects. The return format is mentioned, but details like rate limits or error behavior are absent.
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 structured with Args and Returns sections, which aids readability, but includes verbose phrasing (e.g., '从目标 MCU 读取'). It could be more concise while retaining all necessary information.
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 has only two parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description sufficiently covers the core functionality and return format. Minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior when max_size is exceeded), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 semantic meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that channels default to read all (0-15) and that max_size has a default of 4096 bytes. This compensates for the schema lacking descriptions. However, it does not detail edge cases like invalid channel values.
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 tool reads RTT log data from a target MCU, using specific verbs ('读取') and resource ('RTT日志数据'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is distinct and unambiguous given sibling names like write_rtt and set_rtt_channel.
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 such as write_rtt or set_rtt_channel. The description implies use for reading logs but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool sets a default channel for subsequent operations, which is a state change. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection is needed), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous default), or error conditions. The behavioral coverage is minimal.
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, using a clear structure with a one-line summary, then Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.
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 simplicity of the tool (setting a single integer parameter) and the presence of sibling tools like read_rtt and write_rtt, the description covers the essential context. However, it lacks details about the output JSON structure (though no output schema is provided) and does not mention if the tool requires a prior connection or if it can fail. It is adequate but could be more complete.
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 input schema provides only the type 'integer' for the channel parameter, with no description. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that it is a channel number in the range 0-15, which is not present in the schema. This adds significant value beyond the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.
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 tool sets the default RTT channel, including the specific verb 'set' and resource 'default RTT channel'. It mentions it affects subsequent RTT operations, which distinguishes it from other RTT tools like read_rtt and write_rtt. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings that might also affect state, but the purpose is clear.
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 when to use the tool: before subsequent RTT operations, by stating 'set the default channel for subsequent RTT operations'. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.
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, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on destructive potential, address validation, connection requirements, or error handling. The return format is mentioned but not behavior traits.
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?
Description is concise with Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is relevant, though the Chinese text is succinct and clear. Slightly front-loaded with purpose.
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 no annotations, description misses prerequisites (connection via connect tool), side effects, and safety context. Output schema presence reduces need to describe return, but overall context for a mutation tool is incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: address example (0x08000000), data format flexibility (hex or string), and is_hex default. This compensates significantly, though constraints on data length or alignment are missing.
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 writes data to a specified address in MCU memory, distinguishing it from siblings like read_memory and write_rtt. The verb 'write' and resource 'MCU memory' are specific.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flash_firmware, write_rtt). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions only the action and return type (JSON string) but omits behavioral traits like destructiveness, required device state, or side effects beyond the basic 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?
Highly concise with two sentences and structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and return. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., device must be connected, destructive nature) that would make it fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds that firmware_path is a file path supporting .hex and .bin formats, which is meaningful beyond the schema's bare type string.
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 verb 'flash' and resource 'firmware to MCU', specifies file extensions .hex and .bin, and distinguishes from siblings like write_memory by focusing on firmware flashing.
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 write_memory or prerequisites such as needing a connection. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
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, so description carries full burden. It mentions retry_attempts but does not disclose behavior on failure, side effects, or required permissions. More detail on connection establishment consequences would be needed.
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?
Description is structured with Args and Returns sections, concise (5 lines for args), front-loaded with purpose. Could integrate some default values more efficiently but overall well-organized.
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 5 params (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers connection intent, parameter meanings, and return type (JSON string). Explanation of output structure or error scenarios would improve completeness.
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?
Input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), but the description adds meaning for all 5 parameters: target examples, interface options (SWD/JTAG), speed unit (kHz), RTT channel, retry_attempts. Adds substantial context beyond raw 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 '连接到 J-Link 调试器和目标 MCU' (connect to J-Link debugger and target MCU), with specific verb and resource. It further lists parameters like target, interface, speed, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools like disconnect or read_memory.
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 establishing a connection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., disconnect for cleanup). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites 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?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like prerequisites (e.g., device connection), idempotency, or side effects. Significant gaps remain.
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, front-loaded, and well-structured with a summary, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds 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?
Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites and workflow integration (e.g., requires connection, channel setup). Adequate but incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains each parameter's role (data, channel, is_hex) and provides context about defaults. This compensates well, though format constraints are missing.
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' (写入/发送) and the resource 'RTT channel', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like read_rtt and set_rtt_channel.
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 versus alternatives like read_rtt or set_rtt_channel. The purpose is implied but not differentiated.
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. Description mentions safe disconnect and resource cleanup but lacks detail on side effects or permissions. Adequate for a simple destructive 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?
Extremely concise with one clear sentence and return description. No wasted words.
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 zero parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers purpose, safety, and return value completely.
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, so baseline 4 applies. Schema is empty, and description does not need to add meaning beyond that.
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 disconnects from a J-Link debugger and cleans up resources, with a verb+resource structure. It is distinct 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It implies use after connecting but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose whether a connection is required, nor does it mention that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The behavioral traits are only implied by the tool name and sibling context.
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 three short lines, with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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 existing output schema (though not displayed), the description sufficiently explains what is returned (JSON string with J-Link and target MCU details). It is complete for a simple info retrieval 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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 it retrieves information about the connected J-Link debugger and target MCU, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect, disconnect, flash_firmware, etc., which are actions rather than queries.
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 versus alternatives. However, as a simple info retrieval tool, its usage is implied. No exclusions 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the tool reads memory and returns JSON hex string, but does not disclose behavior on invalid addresses, side effects (though reading is non-destructive), connection requirements, or error handling. Adequate for a simple read but lacks depth.
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?
Description is brief with a one-line title, one-line explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded with key verb and resource. No wasted words; 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior and return format. Missing details like error handling, alignment, or byte order, but these are minor for this domain. Sufficient for most use cases.
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?
Input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains address as starting address with example (0x08000000) and size as byte count with range (1-1048576). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 '读取 MCU 内存' (read MCU memory) and '从目标 MCU 的指定地址读取内存数据' (read memory data from specified address of target MCU). It clearly identifies the verb (read) and resource (MCU memory), distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_memory (write) and read_rtt (RTT logging).
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 read_memory versus alternatives like read_rtt or get_device_info. The context is implied by reading raw memory at an address, but absence of when-not-to-use or prerequisites limits its helpfulness for agent decision-making.
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 provided, but the description explains reset modes, wait time, and return value, providing adequate behavioral context for most use cases.
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 Args and Returns sections, though a bit verbose; it efficiently conveys necessary information.
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 simplicity and presence of output schema reference, the description covers key aspects, though lacks explicit details on return format.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning to both parameters, explaining mode options and default wait_time 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 it resets the target MCU and lists specific modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect and disconnect.
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 resetting a connected MCU but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings 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.

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:

[![J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MisakaMikoto128/J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MisakaMikoto128/J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MisakaMikoto128/J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MisakaMikoto128/J-Link-RTT-Viewer-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/MisakaMikoto128/J-Link-RTT-Viewer-MCP'

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