STM32Cube-MCP

by brovk2008

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stm32_read_option_bytes

Reads device option bytes to show current RDP, BOR, watchdog, and boot configurations. Enables verifying protection and startup settings before modifying.

Instructions

Reads device option bytes (Read Out Protection RDP, Brownout Reset BOR, Watchdog, Boot).

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": "stm32_read_option_bytes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No		SWD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 communicates a safe read operation and names the specific bytes retrieved, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral context such as connection requirements, whether OpenOCD must be running, or what happens if the target is unresponsive — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and packs the key detail (which option bytes) in-line. Only minor waste is the parenthetical listing, which is justified since it adds meaning.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no description. With only one parameter and clear scope it is fairly complete, but the undocumented 'port' semantics and lack of prerequisite guidance leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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% and the description does not explain the 'port' parameter (default 'SWD'). Since the schema carries only a type and default, the agent is left to infer what valid port values look like (e.g., SWD vs JTAG), which the description should clarify.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('device option bytes'), then enumerates the exact option bytes covered (RDP, BOR, Watchdog, Boot), giving the agent concrete detail on what is read. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling stm32_write_option_bytes via the read/write contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as requiring a connected probe or powered target. Differentiation from stm32_read_memory and stm32_write_option_bytes is left to inference from the name.

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