embedded-mcp

by atillab1

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Register decoding splits into two tools for different input methods (manual vs SVD), but they are unambiguous in their usage. Other tools cover flashing, serial interaction, and listing, with no overlapping functionalities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., decode_register, list_flashers). No mix of styles or vague verbs, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for embedded development workflows. It covers register decoding, firmware flashing, flasher detection, serial port listing, and serial communication without being overly numerous or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core embedded tasks (register decoding, flashing, serial interaction) but misses a few common operations like direct memory read/write or chip reset. These gaps are minor and the surface is largely complete for typical debugging.
Average 4.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns 'binary view plus each field's extracted value' but does not cover error handling or limitations like field overlaps.
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?
The description is efficient: front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear example and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Fairly complete for a decoding tool: explains input, structure of fields, output. However, lacks error handling details or constraints on field definitions.
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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining value is raw register, fields structure (single bit vs bit range), and width for display only.
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?
The description clearly states the tool decodes a raw register value into named bit-fields, using a concrete example (0x4002). It distinguishes from the sibling 'decode_register_svd' by implying SVD-based decoding is different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use it (when you have a raw register value). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list suggests an alternative for SVD-based decoding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a file ('reads the real bit-fields from the SVD'), implying read-only file access. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found, invalid SVD) or other behavioral traits like output format or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: a high-level purpose sentence, a comparison to a sibling tool for context, a concrete example, and a clear 'Args' listing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (distinction from `decode_register`) is front-loaded.
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?
Given 5 parameters (4 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the return value format, but since an output schema exists, that is acceptable. The only minor gap is the lack of details about error scenarios or file access requirements, but overall it is complete for typical usage.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' block: `value` as raw register value, `svd_path` as file path, `peripheral` and `register` as names, and `width` with default 32. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles. A brief example further clarifies usage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool decodes a register value using a CMSIS-SVD file by name, contrasting with the sibling tool `decode_register` that requires manual bit map input. The verb 'decode' and specific resource (register via SVD) are explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like `flash_firmware` or `list_serial_ports`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises use when an SVD file is available, saying 'Instead of typing out the bit map by hand (as `decode_register` needs)'. It provides an example and lists arguments, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites like file existence. The guidance is clear for the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns one entry per port with device name and human description, implying a read-only, safe operation. No mention of side effects or permissions, but the simple nature of the tool makes this sufficient.
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?
The description is extremely concise—just two sentences and an example line. It front-loads the main action and immediately provides actionable information. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given the lack of parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown, but mentioned), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its return format. It could mention whether the list is static or can change between calls, but this is minor.
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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the output fields (device name and description), which is helpful despite no parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the serial ports currently available on this machine.' It provides concrete examples of output (e.g., 'COM5' on Windows) and explains its role as a prerequisite for other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like flash_firmware or read_serial.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using this tool first to discover the port, and notes that other tools take a `port` parameter. This provides clear context, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if port is already known).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: opens the port, listens passively, returns all output, and caps listening at 30s. It does not cover potential errors or device requirements, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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?
The description is concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value ('everything it saw'). It lacks details on error conditions or device setup, but the presence of an output schema compensates. Sibling tools are available but not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents all three parameters. It provides examples (port), units and default (baudrate), and constraints (seconds capped at 30s). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states it reads serial output for a specified duration. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('device prints on port'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_command' (sending) and 'list_serial_ports' (listing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete use case ('what is my firmware logging right now?') and implies read-only passive listening. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: writes command with line ending, listens for response for reply_seconds (capped at 30s). It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty reply, but gives sufficient transparency for typical use.
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?
Highly concise: first sentence summarizes purpose, then a short paragraph adds context, followed by a clean Args list. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: tool action, parameters, usage context, and behavioral constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. The Args section explains each parameter: port, command, baudrate (default 115200), reply_seconds (capped at 30s), line_ending (appended automatically). Adds meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Send `command` to the device and capture its reply.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'read_serial' which only reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to drive a firmware's command shell (CLI over UART) — e.g. send "status" and read what comes back.' Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context signals and sibling names (e.g., read_serial, flash_firmware) help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes a read-only inspection tool with no side effects. Could mention if any installation detection is invasive, but likely not needed.
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 sentences plus a parenthetical list; no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a simple list operation, the description fully covers purpose and usage. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining the output (list of installed tools), which is beyond the empty schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reports which firmware-flashing tools are installed, with a specific verb 'report' and resource 'installed tools on this machine'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like flash_firmware by being a prerequisite check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to call this before flash_firmware, giving direct when-to-use guidance. It also lists example tools (st-flash, probe-rs, openocd) to set expectations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: overwriting flash, destructive nature, dry_run behavior, timeout capping at 600s. This gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects and execution control.
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?
The description is front-loaded with a one-line summary and a prominent DESTRUCTIVE warning, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive behavior, multiple flashing tools) and absence of annotations or output schema details in the description, it fully covers all necessary context. The presence of an output schema elsewhere covers return value information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It adds a bullet list explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and allowed formats (e.g., .bin vs .elf), which goes well beyond the schema's property names and types.
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?
The description clearly states 'Flash a firmware image onto the connected board,' using a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools are debug, register, and serial tools, so this tool's unique flashing purpose is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns of destructiveness and explains the dry_run safety default. It provides clear context for when to use the tool (flashing firmware) but does not directly compare to siblings; however, siblings are distinct enough that no explicit comparisons are necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![embedded-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![embedded-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server