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

J-Link RTT Viewer MCP

by MisakaMikoto128
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

write_rtt

Transmit data to target MCU RTT channels for logging and debugging. Optionally set channel number or send as hexadecimal.

Instructions

向 RTT 通道写入数据

向目标 MCU 的 RTT 通道发送数据。

Args: data: 要写入的数据 channel: 通道号，None 使用默认通道 is_hex: 是否为十六进制数据，默认 False

Returns: 写入结果的 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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "write_rtt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
channelNo
is_hexNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools