Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
J-Link RTT Viewer MCP

J-Link RTT Viewer MCP

by MisakaMikoto128
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

flash_firmware

Flash firmware files (.hex, .bin) to a connected target MCU using J-Link debugger.

Instructions

烧录固件到 MCU

将固件文件烧录到连接的目标 MCU。

Args: firmware_path: 固件文件路径 (.hex, .bin)

Returns: 烧录结果的 JSON 字符串

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "firmware_path": "<firmware_path>"
    },
    "name": "flash_firmware"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
firmware_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools