MCP Remote Access

by RFingAdam

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The serial tools cover specific operations like connecting, reading, writing, resetting, and managing connections, while the SSH tools handle remote execution and connection management. Tools like serial_connect and serial_connect_match are differentiated by their connection methods, and serial_expect vs serial_wait_for have distinct use cases for pattern handling.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. Serial tools use prefixes like 'serial_' and SSH tools use 'ssh_', creating clear groupings. This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand and select the appropriate tool based on naming conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 20 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the server's purpose of remote access covering both serial and SSH operations. The tools are well-scoped, with each earning its place by addressing specific needs in device communication and remote execution, though it borders on feeling heavy compared to typical 3-15 tool ranges.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for both serial and SSH domains. For serial, it includes connection management, data transfer, device control, and monitoring. For SSH, it covers connection handling, command execution, and background task management. There are no obvious gaps that would cause agent failures in typical remote access workflows.
Average 3.3/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions waiting for patterns and sending responses, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read/write operation, whether it's destructive or safe, what happens on timeout (e.g., error handling), or the expected output format. The description is insufficient for a tool with complex interaction patterns and no annotation coverage.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an example use case. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool and providing context. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.
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's complexity (interactive serial communication with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in various scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'steps' or clarify 'connection_id' usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Wait for patterns and optionally send responses' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific resource (serial connection) and lacks clear differentiation from siblings like 'serial_wait_for' or 'serial_send'. It mentions 'Useful for login prompts and AT flows' as examples, but doesn't explicitly define the core function beyond pattern waiting and sending.
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 like 'serial_wait_for' (for waiting only) or 'serial_send' (for sending only). The description mentions it's 'Useful for login prompts and AT flows', which implies some context but doesn't provide clear when/when-not rules or name specific alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly defined.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a connection ID, which is useful, but fails to mention critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, resource management (e.g., if connections persist or need cleanup), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a connection-establishing 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the action and outcome. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 establishing a serial connection (a stateful operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error conditions, connection lifecycle, or what the returned connection ID entails, which are crucial for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (port, baudrate, timeout) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('serial port'), and distinguishes it from siblings like serial_disconnect and serial_list_ports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like serial_esp32_connect, which might handle a specific device type.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like serial_esp32_connect or ssh_connect, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for establishing serial connections. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Close' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what happens to pending data, whether it requires specific permissions, or what side effects might occur. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after disconnection, whether there's confirmation feedback, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the broader serial port management workflow with its many sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'connection_id' adequately. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, such as where to obtain connection IDs or format requirements.
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 action ('Close') and resource ('serial port connection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_disconnect' or explain what distinguishes serial port disconnection from other disconnection operations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an active connection), when-not-to-use scenarios, or relationship to sibling tools like 'serial_connect' or 'serial_list_connections'.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical behaviors: whether it's blocking/non-blocking, how it handles errors or timeouts beyond the parameter, what happens if no data is available, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its runtime behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.
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 serial communication and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available data' means, how the read operation behaves (e.g., streaming vs. buffered), error handling, or return format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to fully understand its operation and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (connection_id, timeout, bytes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, typical values, or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('available data from a serial port'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like serial_send (which writes) and serial_expect (which reads with pattern matching), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an established connection via serial_connect), exclusions (e.g., not for writing data), or comparisons to similar tools like serial_expect or serial_wait_for. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't explain what 'close' entails—whether it's graceful, immediate, reversible, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 disconnecting a network connection, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what happens post-disconnection, which are crucial for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'connection_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain the connection_id or its format, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Close') and resource ('SSH connection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'serial_disconnect' or 'ssh_list_connections' beyond specifying SSH, which is somewhat helpful but not fully distinguishing.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active SSH connection), exclusions, or related tools like 'ssh_list_connections' for identifying connections to disconnect.
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; the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether local files are overwritten, error handling, or blocking behavior. As a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 a single concise sentence, but lacks structure such as examples or sections, making it under-specified for a tool with three required parameters.
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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete; it does not explain return values or behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Download') and resource ('file from the remote host via SFTP'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like ssh_upload or ssh_execute.
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, such as requiring an active SSH connection (connection_id) or mentioning alternative methods for downloading directories.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a connection ID, which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this establishes a persistent connection, what happens if multiple devices match the criteria, error handling for no matches, or resource implications (e.g., if connections need manual cleanup). For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential 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?
For a connection tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return value but misses important context: no guidance on sibling tool differentiation, limited behavioral transparency, and no details on error cases or connection lifecycle. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more operational guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions matching criteria generically but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how multiple filters combine) or provide examples of typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Connect to a serial port') and the matching criteria ('by matching VID/PID/serial/description'), which distinguishes it from simpler connection tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'serial_connect' or 'serial_esp32_connect', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific matching approach.
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 like 'serial_connect' or 'serial_esp32_connect'. The description mentions matching criteria but doesn't explain scenarios where this matching approach is preferred over direct port specification or other connection methods available in the sibling tools.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists connections but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., connection IDs, status), whether it's real-time or cached, or any limitations like rate constraints. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, data fields) or behavioral aspects like error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in a context with multiple sibling tools.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters, meeting the baseline for zero-param tools.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all active serial connections'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'serial_list_ports' which lists ports rather than connections, missing full sibling distinction.
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. For example, it doesn't explain if this should be used before connecting or to monitor active connections, nor does it mention siblings like 'ssh_list_connections' for different connection types.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or how 'active' is defined. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with system resources.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and is front-loaded with the essential information.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns system connection data, it should specify output format, authentication requirements, or what constitutes 'active' connections. The current description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 action ('List') and target resource ('all active SSH connections'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ssh_list_background' or 'serial_list_connections', which prevents a perfect score.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssh_list_background' or 'serial_list_connections'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of port names, JSON objects), whether it requires system permissions, or if it has side effects like refreshing port states. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with hardware.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List available serial ports') and specifies the scope ('on the system'), making it immediately understandable without requiring additional parsing.
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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format or system dependencies, which could be important for an agent using this in a hardware context. It meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the zero-parameter case without unnecessary details.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('available serial ports on the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'serial_list_connections', but the specificity of 'serial ports' versus 'connections' provides some implicit distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serial_list_connections' or other serial tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's effect ('Set DTR line state') and a common use case ('device reset'), but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read/write operation (implied write from 'Set'), potential side effects (e.g., interrupting serial communication), permission requirements, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies hardware state, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 highly concise with two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second provides practical context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with clear schema support.
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's complexity (hardware control with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details (e.g., what happens on error, if changes are reversible), output expectations, and fails to fully guide usage relative to siblings. For a tool that may affect device state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('connection_id', 'state') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of typical 'state' values for reset scenarios). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 action ('Set DTR line state') and the resource ('Data Terminal Ready line'), with a specific purpose ('Used for device reset on many boards'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'serial_set_rts' by focusing on DTR rather than RTS, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from other control tools.
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 device reset scenarios, providing some context ('on many boards'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serial_reset_device' or 'serial_set_rts'. No prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active connection) or exclusions are stated, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool waits for a pattern and has a timeout default, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it blocks execution, what happens on timeout (e.g., error or return), if it consumes output, or any side effects. For a tool that interacts with serial connections, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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's complexity (involving serial I/O and pattern waiting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual details: behavioral traits (e.g., blocking nature, error handling), output format, and how it integrates with siblings like serial_connect. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (connection_id, pattern, timeout). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as pattern matching details or timeout implications. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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's purpose: 'Wait for a specific string/pattern in serial output.' It specifies the verb ('wait for') and resource ('serial output'), and distinguishes it from siblings like serial_read or serial_expect by focusing on waiting for patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from serial_expect (which might have similar functionality), keeping it from a perfect score.
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 provides implied usage context with 'Useful for boot messages, prompts,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like serial_expect or serial_read, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection from serial_connect). This leaves gaps in usage differentiation.
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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes commands and returns stdout, stderr, and exit code, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as permission requirements, whether commands run in a shell, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling for timeouts or connection issues, or rate limits. For a tool that executes commands on remote hosts, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return values without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.
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 executing commands on SSH hosts (a potentially destructive operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover safety aspects, error scenarios, or detailed behavioral traits. While it mentions return values, it doesn't describe their format or implications. For a tool with no structured safety hints and significant operational risks, this description falls short of providing adequate context for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (connection_id, command, timeout) with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 action ('Execute a command') and resource ('on a connected SSH host'), and specifies the return values (stdout, stderr, exit code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_connect or ssh_disconnect by focusing on command execution rather than connection management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ssh_check_background or ssh_list_background, which might also involve command execution in different contexts.
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 by mentioning 'connected SSH host' and referencing 'connection_id from ssh_connect', suggesting it should be used after establishing a connection. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_check_background (for background commands) or serial tools for serial communication, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the connection requirement.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what constitutes a 'background task' in this context, whether the list is real-time or cached, what status values are possible, or how the output is formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or redundant 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally clarify what 'background tasks' means in this SSH context and what format/status information is returned. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the nature and format of the output.
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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need clarification beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('background tasks and their status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ssh_list_connections' or 'serial_list_connections' - it only specifies what it lists, not how it differs from other listing tools in the SSH/serial context.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ssh_check_background' that might check specific background tasks, there's no indication of when to choose listing all tasks versus checking specific ones. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools.
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 carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing error behavior, permission requirements, size limits, overwrite behavior, or success indicators.
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?
Single sentence with no superfluous information. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
Missing details about return values, error handling, prerequisite (ssh_connect must have been called), and any constraints. Incomplete for a file upload tool with no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema (only 'via SFTP'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (upload), resource (file), and destination (remote host via SFTP). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_download and ssh_execute.
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 or when not to use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives. The description is purely functional 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool sets RTS state and hints at a use case for bootloader entry, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., device reset), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key use case without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.
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's moderate complexity (hardware control), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a use case but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error conditions, or output expectations, leaving room for improvement in completeness for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('connection_id' and 'state'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, such as explaining the implications of RTS state changes, aligning with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 action ('Set RTS line state') and the resource ('RTS line'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'serial_set_dtr', which likely sets a different control line, though the mention of 'bootloader entry on ESP32/STM32' hints at a specific use case.
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 'bootloader entry on ESP32/STM32', suggesting a specific context, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'serial_set_dtr' for DTR line control) or any prerequisites beyond the implied connection setup. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool can 'optionally wait for and return response,' which hints at I/O behavior, but fails to detail critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the connection is invalid), side effects (e.g., whether it modifies port state), or performance traits (e.g., blocking nature during response waiting). For a tool with potential side effects and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('send data to a serial port') and appends the optional behavior. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 serial communication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what the response looks like), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like serial_connect. For a tool that performs I/O operations with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the interaction between 'raw' and 'line_ending' or clarifying 'connection_id' usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.
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 specific action ('send data to a serial port') and resource ('serial port'), distinguishing it from siblings like serial_read, serial_expect, or serial_wait_for. It also mentions the optional response behavior, which adds specificity beyond basic sending.
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 by mentioning the optional response behavior, suggesting it's for sending data with possible feedback. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like serial_expect (which might involve pattern matching) or serial_read (for reading without sending), and doesn't specify prerequisites such as needing an established connection via serial_connect.
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 must fully disclose behavior. 'Clear pending input/output data' implies data loss but does not specify if the operation blocks, requires an open connection, or affects other serial operations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It is efficient but could briefly mention the role of the connection_id parameter without sacrificing conciseness.
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 action tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. Minor missing details: error conditions or prerequisite state (connection open).
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'flush' and identifies the resource as 'serial buffers', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like serial_read or serial_send which handle data flow.
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 flush buffers (e.g., after a failed read, before a new session) or when not to use this tool. No alternatives 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: checking if a command is still running and returning the latest output. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout behavior, output format, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it returns. Every word serves a clear purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness about what the tool does. However, it lacks information about return value structure, error conditions, and how it integrates with the broader SSH tool ecosystem beyond the implied connection to 'ssh_execute_background'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'task_id' and background commands or providing examples of 'tail_lines' usage.
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's purpose: checking status and retrieving output from a background command. It specifies the verb ('check status and get output') and resource ('background command'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_list_background' or 'ssh_execute'.
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 context by mentioning 'background command' and referencing 'task_id from ssh_execute_background', suggesting it's used after initiating a background task. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssh_list_background' or 'ssh_execute' for non-background commands.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive/mutative operation ('Reset'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe what happens after reset (e.g., device state changes, potential data loss), whether authentication is needed, or any rate limits. The description adds basic behavioral context but leaves important operational details unspecified.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Reset' (action), 'embedded device' (target), 'using DTR/RTS sequence' (mechanism), and 'Supports ESP32, STM32, and generic reset' (scope). There's zero wasted verbiage.
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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral consequences. While it clearly states the purpose and scope, it doesn't describe what 'reset' actually means for device state, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'ESP32, STM32, and generic reset' which aligns with the method enum values, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Reset an embedded device') and the mechanism ('using DTR/RTS sequence'), while also specifying the supported device types ('ESP32, STM32, and generic reset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like serial_disconnect or serial_send_break by focusing on device reset functionality.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for resetting embedded devices with specific methods) and implies prerequisites through the connection_id parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though serial_send_break might be a related alternative for different reset scenarios.
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 discloses the behavioral intent (sending a break signal for interruption/debugging) but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or response behavior. It does not mention if this is a read-only or destructive operation, though 'send' implies a write action.
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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and immediately providing usage context. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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's moderate complexity (a write operation with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or what happens after sending the break. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (connection_id and duration). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why duration matters or how break signals work. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 specific action ('Send a serial break signal') and the target resource ('U-Boot, debug modes'), distinguishing it from siblings like serial_send or serial_set_dtr. It explicitly mentions the purpose of interrupting or entering modes, which is more specific than just the tool name.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Used to interrupt U-Boot, enter debug modes'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage in specific debugging scenarios without detailing prerequisites like needing an active connection first.
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 discloses key behavioral traits: it establishes a connection and returns a connection ID for reuse. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements (e.g., password vs. key trade-offs), timeouts, error handling, or whether the connection persists across tool calls. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with security implications.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with the return value. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 complexity (SSH connection with authentication and security considerations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks details on behavioral nuances (e.g., error cases, connection management) that would help an agent use it correctly in varied scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation (e.g., host as 'Hostname or IP address,' password as 'optional if using key'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 specific action ('Connect to a remote host via SSH') and resource ('remote host'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_execute or ssh_disconnect. It explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns a connection ID for subsequent commands'), which further clarifies its purpose beyond basic connection establishment.
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 implies usage context by mentioning the connection ID is for 'subsequent commands,' suggesting this tool initiates a session rather than executing commands directly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like ssh_execute (for one-off commands) or provide exclusions (e.g., not for already-connected hosts).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it performs automatic reset, waits for boot completion, handles specific baud rate transitions (74880 to 115200), and manages device readiness. It doesn't mention error handling, connection persistence, or resource cleanup, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and follow with essential technical details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.
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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and behavioral context well but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful connection. For a connection tool with no output schema, some indication of expected outcomes would enhance completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'baudrate' refers to application baud (115200) and that boot sequence involves 74880 baud initially. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Connect to ESP32') with detailed technical scope ('with automatic reset and boot wait') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'serial_connect' by specifying ESP32-specific boot sequence handling (74880 baud boot messages, then app at 115200). It explicitly mentions the device type and unique boot behavior.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for ESP32 devices requiring automatic reset and boot sequence handling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'serial_connect' for non-ESP32 devices or 'serial_reset_device' for manual reset scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that execution is background (non-blocking), returns a task ID and output file path, and indicates a follow-up mechanism. No contradictions. Missing details like auth requirements or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
For a tool with only 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, return values, and how to monitor progress. No gaps identified.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds 'long-running' but otherwise does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (execute command), resource (SSH background), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'long-running' and 'background'. It also mentions the return values (task ID, output file path) and directs to ssh_check_background, which differentiates from ssh_execute.
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?
Explicitly states to use ssh_check_background for monitoring, which is a clear usage guideline. It implies this tool is for long-running commands that should not block. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the sibling context provides that information.
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:

[![mcp-remote-access MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/mcp-remote-access/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/mcp-remote-access)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-remote-access MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/mcp-remote-access/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/mcp-remote-access)

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/RFingAdam/mcp-remote-access'

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