McuBuddy

by cunjun

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

first_contact

Run a safe initial board connection procedure and get recommended next tools for debugging MCU firmware issues.

Instructions

Run the safest first board contact flow and suggest next debug tools.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "first_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`target`	Yes
`backend`	No	pyocd
`elf_path`	No
`pack_path`	No
`unique_id`	No
`pack_paths`	No
`disconnect_after`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The word 'safest' implies non-destructive operation, but there is no explicit statement about read-only behavior, connection lifecycle, or data returned.

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?

The description is a single sentence with clear action, no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though perhaps too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to describe what the 'first board contact' flow does, what the return value looks like, or how parameters affect behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 7 parameters. The required 'target' field is undefined, and optional parameters like backend, pack_path, and unique_id are not 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?

The description clearly states it runs a 'first board contact flow' and suggests next debug tools, giving a specific action and outcome. It is distinct from low-level probe tools but could be more explicit about what the flow entails.

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?

The description implies it is for the initial contact with a board ('first contact') and that it will suggest next steps, indicating when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use other connection or flashing tools.

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