Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pico-bay

pico-bay

Official
by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Read a board file

pico_file_read
Read-only

Read a file from a connected MicroPython or CircuitPython board by board ID and path, returning UTF-8 text or base64 for binary data.

Instructions

Read one board file. auto returns UTF-8 text when safe and base64 for binary data; utf8 forces text; base64 always returns base64.

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_file_read"
  }
}

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.
encodingNoauto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by explaining what the returned payload looks like for each encoding mode (UTF-8 vs base64). It says nothing about error behavior, size limits, or large-file handling, which keeps it at a solid but not rich 3.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and then the optional parameter semantics. Every phrase carries information; nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return value, and it does so adequately by explaining when text versus base64 comes back. It is thin on failure modes and file-size expectations, but complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67% and the undocumented parameter is exactly the one the description explains: the three encoding modes and their auto-detection behavior. This is real meaning added beyond the enum and default in the schema. path and board_id remain schema-only, but those are already well described.

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 one board file'), which is immediately distinguishable from pico_file_write and pico_files_list. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the read-only single-file scope is unambiguous.

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 versus pico_files_list for discovery, nor any prerequisite such as needing a board_id from pico_boards_list. The only contextual instruction is about encoding choice, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level guidance.

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