Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pico-bay

pico-bay

Official
by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Create a board directory

pico_directory_create

Create a single directory on a selected MicroPython or CircuitPython board at a specified path relative to its filesystem root.

Instructions

Create one directory on the selected board.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pico_directory_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath on the board filesystem, relative to its root.
board_idYesStable board UID returned by pico_boards_list, or its current serial device path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description should add context such as idempotency, whether intermediate parent directories are created, and what happens if the path already exists. It mentions none of this, leaving the failure and overwrite semantics completely undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but thin, trading away useful behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation with a fully described schema and no output schema, so little detail is required. However, for a write operation with no annotations covering error behavior, the description should say at minimum whether the path must already have a parent, which it does not.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including how board_id is obtained from pico_boards_list. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Create one directory on the selected board" gives a specific verb (create) and resource (directory) plus the board scope, which is clearer than the bare name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as pico_file_write or pico_path_rename, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus pico_file_write or pico_path_rename, and no prerequisites are mentioned, such as the board being connected or the parent directory existing. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name.

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