Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-bridge

mcp-bridge

by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

mcp_gpio_read

Read GPIO pin values on a remote agent by pin number, name, or all pins to monitor hardware state.

Instructions

Read a GPIO pin value on agent by number or name, or 'all' to read all pins.

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": {
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "name_or_gpio": "<name_or_gpio>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_gpio_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYes
name_or_gpioYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.23

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read but omits whether the agent must be connected, permissions required, error behavior for an unknown pin name, and what 'all' returns — significant 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and accepted inputs with no filler; every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves out return shape (especially for 'all'), failure modes, and the source of the `agent` value, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines `name_or_gpio` (pin number, pin name, or the special value 'all'), which the schema cannot convey, but it never defines what `agent` accepts or where that identifier comes from.

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 and resource ("Read a GPIO pin value") and identifies the target (`agent`), which cleanly separates it from mcp_gpio_write and mcp_gpio_config. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: you read a pin when you need its value, and passing 'all' reads every pin. There is no explicit when-to-use versus mcp_gpio_scan or mcp_gpio_watched, and no prerequisites stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools