mcp-micropython-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

micropython_read_hardware_md

Read and return the /HARDWARE.md file from a connected MicroPython device over USB Serial or WebREPL, helping MCP clients inspect hardware documentation.

Instructions

デバイス上の /HARDWARE.md を読み出して返す

Args: timeout: コード送信から Raw REPL 復帰完了までの全体タイムアウト秒数

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_read_hardware_md"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`error`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`size_bytes`	Yes
`content_base64`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says it reads a file and returns it. It discloses nothing about connection state requirements, what happens if /HARDWARE.md is absent, or whether the read is safe/idempotent — a meaningful gap for a device-facing 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 short lines, purpose front-loaded, then the Arg definition with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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, and the tool is simple (one param). What is still missing is the relationship to the many sibling read tools and any precondition about the device connection, which the agent must guess.

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. It does: the sole 'timeout' parameter is explained as the overall seconds from code transmission through Raw REPL return completion, which is real semantic meaning beyond the bare 'integer' in the schema.

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: read /HARDWARE.md on the device and return it. That is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling micropython_read_file, which would presumably also read an arbitrary path, so an agent cannot tell why this specialized tool exists.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (must be connected?), no condition selecting this over micropython_read_file, micropython_read_lines, or micropython_head_lines. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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