mcp-micropython-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

micropython_connection_status

Check if a MicroPython device is connected and return serial or WebREPL transport details, target, host, port, baudrate, and errors.

Instructions

現在の接続状態を返す

Returns: ok: 成功 True connected: 接続中なら True transport: serial または webrepl target: 接続時に指定したターゲット host: WebREPL 接続時のホスト port: 接続先ポート baudrate: serial 接続時のボーレート error: エラー時のメッセージ

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": "micropython_connection_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates return fields (connected, transport, target, host, port, baudrate, error) which usefully discloses that transport is either 'serial' or 'webrepl' and that failures surface via an error message — but it says nothing about side effects, auth requirements, or whether this has any cost when disconnected.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact field list. Every line earns its place; no preamble or filler.

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?

A zero-parameter status read with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values — and in fact its field listing partially duplicates the output schema. What remains missing is only the light when-to-use framing, which for this simple tool is a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for a parameter gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '現在の接続状態を返す' (returns the current connection status). It is clearly distinguishable from connect/disconnect/eval siblings by its read-status nature, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers 'call this to check whether you're connected before issuing commands.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as micropython_get_info or micropython_list_ports.

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