mcp-micropython-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

micropython_stat_path

Get file or directory details from a MicroPython board, including type, size, mode, and modification time. Use to verify path existence and metadata.

Instructions

MicroPython ボード上のパス情報を取得

Args: path: 対象パス

Returns: ok: 取得に成功したら True path: 対象パス kind: file, dir, unknown のいずれか size_bytes: ファイルサイズ mode: os.stat() の mode 値 mtime: 更新時刻 error: エラー時のメッセージ

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "micropython_stat_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`error`	Yes
`mtime`	Yes
`size_bytes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 lists return fields and an error field, but does not state that the operation is read-only, how symlinks or permissions are handled, or any other safety-relevant trait beyond basic stat semantics.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. It is appropriately sized, though the Returns block is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists.

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 one-parameter stat tool with an output schema, the core invocation details are present. However, missing usage guidance, parameter format details, and behavioral safety disclosure leave notable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single path parameter. The description only says 'path: target path', which essentially restates the parameter name and adds no format, relative/absolute path, or constraint information.

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: getting path information on a MicroPython board. It implies metadata rather than file contents, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like micropython_read_file or micropython_list_files.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as list_files for directory listing or read_file for contents, leaving the agent to infer when stat is appropriate.

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