embedded-mcp

by Robin609

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

firmware_get_config

Retrieve the firmware release configuration for a specified board or from a custom configuration file.

Instructions

Inspect the resolved firmware release configuration.

Args: board_id: Optional board identifier. config_path: Optional custom firmware release configuration file path.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board_id`	No
`config_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'resolved' means in terms of configuration merging or precedence.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and a minimal Args list for parameter clarification. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-style tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and any indication of how the optional parameters affect the resolved configuration. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides brief definitions for both parameters—'Optional board identifier' and 'Optional custom firmware release configuration file path'—but these add only marginal detail beyond the parameter names and schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the resolved firmware release configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like firmware_get_version and firmware_build, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as firmware_get_version, firmware_release, or firmware_build. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.