mcp-micropython-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

micropython_connect

Connect to a MicroPython board using serial port or WebREPL host to enable code execution, file transfers, and device control.

Instructions

指定ターゲットへ接続

Args: target: COM3 なら serial、host[:port] なら WebREPL password: WebREPL 接続時のパスワード baudrate: serial 接続時のボーレート

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "micropython_connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes
`baudrate`	No
`password`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`host`	Yes
`port`	Yes
`error`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`baudrate`	Yes
`transport`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral fact that the target format selects the transport (COM3 → serial, host[:port] → WebREPL), but says nothing about failure behavior, whether an existing connection is replaced, or idempotency.

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?

One short purpose line followed by a compact Args block; it is front-loaded and free of filler. Nothing extraneous, though it could be marginally richer without bloating.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a stateful connect operation with no annotations, the definition leaves connection lifecycle questions (already connected, retries, failure modes) 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the target string format per transport and the purpose of password (WebREPL) and baudrate (serial). It omits the defaults (baudrate 115200, password null), which are in the schema, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

It states a clear verb+resource ('connect to the specified target'), so an agent knows this establishes a MicroPython connection. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like micropython_disconnect or micropython_connection_status beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must be called before eval/exec), and names no alternatives. An agent can infer that connecting precedes other operations, but nothing is stated.

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