hwcontract

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: check_* does live capture+judge, judge_* does offline judging, and capture_ws2812 is capture-only. However, judge_contract and judge_serial could be confused for serial logs, and capture_ws2812 vs check_ws2812 requires careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes three verb prefixes (judge_, check_, capture_) and inconsistently references protocols (ws2812, dshot, serial) vs the generic 'contract'. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools are well-scoped for hardware contract testing: one generic judge, one capture, and four protocol-specific live/offline checks. This is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow of capture and judge is covered for WS2812, serial, and DShot (via live check). Missing a DShot capture-only tool and a dedicated judge_dshot, but judge_contract fills the gap, so only minor dead ends exist.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading for N seconds and judging, but omits critical details such as blocking behavior, return format, pass/fail semantics, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a hardware-interfacing tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action ('Read a serial port') is front-loaded, and the compound purpose is communicated efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify return values, error behavior, or how the contract 'judgment' is reported, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies 'port', 'seconds', and 'contract_path' but completely ignores 'baud', which is a necessary serial configuration parameter. The partial coverage leaves the meaning of 'baud' ambiguous and the overall parameter semantics incomplete.
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's verb and resource: it 'Read[s] a serial port for N seconds' and 'judge[s] its log against a contract's expect/forbid patterns.' This distinguishes it from siblings like judge_serial (which likely only judges) by explicitly combining capture and judgment.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like judge_serial or capture_ws2812. 'Read AND judge' implies a combined use case, but no clear prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references are given.
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 must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It reveals the combined capture-and-judge behavior but omits any mention of hardware requirements, permissions, or failure handling, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool combining two operations.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key actions and resource, with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a combined capture-and-judge tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required contract_path, the role of driver/channel/samples/samplerate, or the format of the judgment result, leaving major operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is fully responsible for explaining the five parameters, but it only mentions DShot600 and contract without detailing driver, channel, samples, samplerate, or contract_path. This leaves all parameters unspecified and does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 captures a live DShot600 ESC signal and judges it against a contract, combining two actions in one call. The specific verb+resource ('capture...AND judge...DShot600 ESC signal') distinguishes it from separate capture-only or judge-only sibling tools.
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?
The 'in one call' phrasing implies it is used when both capture and judgment are needed at once, suggesting an alternative to separate operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like judge_contract, though the sibling context provides this implication.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures data and returns observations, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit safety details, prerequisites (e.g., sigrok setup, hardware requirements), and possible side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. It avoids redundancy and every part contributes meaning, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand how to use the tool. It does not explain parameter semantics, return format details (units, structure), or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter details. The parameter names (driver, channel, samples, samplerate) are self-explanatory to some extent, but the absence of units, allowed values, or relationships means the agent gains no additional meaning from the description.
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's function: capturing the WS2812 data line via sigrok and returning measured pulse-width observations (T0H/T1H/...). The verb 'Capture' and specific resource (WS2812 data line) distinguish it from sibling tools like check_ws2812 which likely validate rather than capture raw data.
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?
The description gives a clear context: use this when you need to capture WS2812 signals for pulse-width analysis. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the specific context (capture vs. check/judge) implies a distinct use case, earning a score slightly below 5.
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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the combined operation (capture+judge) but does not disclose potential side effects, whether it blocks, or return format. Some transparency is present, but depth is lacking.
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?
Two short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, conveying purpose and usage without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers its overall purpose. Missing are parameter prerequisites, contract format, return values, and any setup requirements, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or meanings. Parameters like 'samples' and 'samplerate' lack units or context, and 'contract_path' is not explicitly connected to the contract mentioned in the description.
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 captures a live WS2812 signal and judges it against a contract in one call. This combines the functionality of sibling tools capture_ws2812 and judge_contract, making its purpose distinct and specific.
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?
The phrase 'The one-shot an agent reaches for' implies this is the preferred combined tool, suggesting it should be used when both capture and judgment are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use separate tools.
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, the description must carry transparency. It discloses non-hardware nature and replay use case, but omits side effects, permissions, or error behavior. As a judging tool, it implies non-destructive but is not explicit.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and outcome. The arrow notation efficiently communicates the result, and every word contributes.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys purpose, usage context, and output categories. It lacks parameter detail but the names are self-explanatory, making it largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The names 'contract_path' and 'observations' are somewhat intuitive but no format or type information is provided beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool judges observations against a contract and outputs pass/marginal/fail. It distinguishes from hardware-capture siblings by noting 'No hardware', but does not explicitly name judge_serial as an alternative.
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?
Provides clear context: use for replay or when an adapter already captured, and excludes hardware usage. Does not name alternative tools explicitly but gives strong situational guidance.
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, the description discloses that the tool does not require hardware, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary information.
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?
The tool is simple with two string parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose and usage context but does not specify the return value or output format, which could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret the results.
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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'serial log' and 'expect/forbid patterns', which gives partial meaning to the `log` and `contract_path` parameters, but it doesn't explain their format or relationship clearly.
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's function: judging a captured serial log against expect/forbid patterns. It also distinguishes itself from hardware-related tools by noting 'No hardware', making it stand out among siblings like capture_ws2812 and check_serial.
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?
The description explicitly specifies when to use this tool: for replay or logs already captured, and states it is not for hardware. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like check_serial for live use.
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:

[![hwcontract MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MohibShaikh/hwcontract/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MohibShaikh/hwcontract)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hwcontract MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MohibShaikh/hwcontract/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MohibShaikh/hwcontract)

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/MohibShaikh/hwcontract'

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