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

J-Link RTT Viewer MCP

by MisakaMikoto128
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

start_log_recording

Start recording RTT data from a J-Link debugger to a file. Provide a log directory path to save the recording.

Instructions

开始日志记录

开始将 RTT 数据记录到文件。

Args: log_dir: 日志目录，默认 "logs"

Returns: 记录状态的 JSON 字符串

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "start_log_recording"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
log_dirNologs

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools