ae-hw-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_bridge_info

Retrieve bridge software version, connected hardware firmware build details, and active serial ports to inspect embedded targets.

Instructions

Get bridge software version, connected hardware puppet firmware info, and active ports.

Returns metadata including ae-hw-bridge package version, ESP32-S3 hw-puppet firmware build details (version, platform, git hash), and serial port paths.

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": "get_bridge_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine value by enumerating what is returned (package version, firmware version/platform/git hash, serial port paths), and 'Get' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, failure modes, or whether the call is safe to repeat.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence specifies the returned metadata. Some redundancy remains (return contents are also captured by the output schema), but nothing is padded or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters and no annotations the description only needs to convey purpose and read-only intent, which it does. A note on preconditions (a connected bridge) would make it fully complete.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description's mention of ports/firmware is return content, not input.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus three concrete resources: bridge software version, hw-puppet firmware info, and active ports. The subject matter (bridge/hardware diagnostics) is clearly distinct from the console- and code-execution siblings.

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 purpose implies a diagnostics/introspection use case, but the description never states when to call it, what preconditions exist (e.g., bridge must be connected), or how it relates to siblings like run_custom_code. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server