Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-rs232

mcp-rs232

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_port

Read data from an open serial port by providing the port name. Optionally set maximum bytes to read (up to 4096) and timeout in seconds.

Instructions

Read data from an open serial port.

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": {
      "port": "<port>"
    },
    "name": "read_port"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYesThe name of the port to read from.
sizeNoMaximum number of bytes to read (default: 4096, max: 4096).
timeoutNoOptional timeout override in seconds.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention blocking behavior, timeout handling, what happens if no data is available, or whether the read is destructive. Critical details are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices important contextual information. It earns its place minimally but is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like blocking, partial reads, and error conditions. Even with output schema, more context is needed for effective use.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions. The tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the read action. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('read data') and the resource ('an open serial port'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like write_port, open_port, etc. However, it could be more specific about reading bytes vs strings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites (port must be opened first) or contraindications. It mentions the port must be open but does not elaborate.

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