Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pico-bay

pico-bay

Official
by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List connected boards

pico_boards_list
Read-only

Lists connected Raspberry Pi Pico and ESP32 boards running MicroPython or CircuitPython, reports each board's capabilities, and returns the board_id required by all other tools.

Instructions

List connected Raspberry Pi Pico and ESP32 boards with MicroPython or CircuitPython and report their capabilities. Use board_id from this result in every other tool.

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": "pico_boards_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the key field returned (board_id) and noting that capabilities are reported, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention enumeration latency or behavior when no boards are connected.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the actionable instruction about board_id. No redundant wording or filler.

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?

With zero parameters but no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so by naming board_id and capability reporting. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance on empty results or whether enumeration can be slow.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus specific resource ('connected Raspberry Pi Pico and ESP32 boards') with the added qualifier of firmware type and capability reporting. No sibling tool does discovery, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from the file, python, and board-control tools.

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 sentence 'Use board_id from this result in every other tool' effectively establishes this as the mandatory entry point and tells the agent what to do with the output. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this first before any other tool' or noting what to do if the list is empty, but the sequencing requirement is clear.

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