PPK2 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

connect

Establish a USB serial connection to a Nordic PPK2 and read its metadata (calibration coefficients, Calibrated flag, VDD). Auto-discovers the port if unspecified.

Instructions

连接 PPK2 并读取元数据(校准系数、Calibrated 标志、VDD)。

port 缺省自动发现。连接后可用 get_status 查看校准状态。

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": "connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the connection side effect and that metadata is read, plus the auto-discovery default. It does not state idempotency (reconnect while connected), permission requirements, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, then the metadata returned, then the port default and follow-up hint. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 connect tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essentials (what it returns, port behavior, next step). It omits error/duplicate-connection semantics and any caveat about reconnecting, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single optional 'port' parameter, and the description compensates by explaining that omitting it triggers auto-discovery. That is genuine semantics beyond the schema's type/default. It still does not state the port's expected string format, preventing a 5.

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 (连接) and resource (PPK2), and clarifies the secondary effect (reading calibration coefficients, Calibrated flag, VDD). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling disconnect. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It establishes context (port auto-discovery) and names a follow-up (get_status for calibration status), which implies the typical flow. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no alternatives (e.g., list_devices before connecting), and no prerequisites for the connection itself.

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