embedded-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

serial_acquire

Obtain exclusive write permission for an embedded board by acquiring a controller lease. Specify board ID and timeout to control auto-release.

Instructions

Acquire exclusive controller lease (write permission) for the board.

Args: board_id: The identifier of the board (e.g. 'board_a') timeout_sec: Lease duration in seconds before auto-release (default: 60.0)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>"
    },
    "name": "serial_acquire"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board_id`	Yes
`timeout_sec`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the lease is exclusive and auto-releases after timeout_sec, but it does not mention blocking behavior, failure modes when already held, or that an explicit serial_release exists.

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 brief and to the point, containing only a clear purpose statement and two parameter explanations. No redundant or unrelated information is included.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, parameter meanings, and auto-release timeout. While it does not describe error/blocking behavior, the provided details are likely sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially with an output schema present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains both parameters: board_id as the board identifier with an example, and timeout_sec as the lease duration with a default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare input schema.

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 ('Acquire exclusive controller lease') and the resource ('for the board'), explicitly noting it grants write permission. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like serial_read or serial_write.

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 phrase 'exclusive controller lease (write permission)' implies it is a prerequisite for write operations, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of avoiding it for read-only scenarios.

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