mcp-mgba
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.3.1
- Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: emulation control (pause/unpause/reset), stepping (advance_frames), memory access at different widths (read8/16/32/range and write counterparts), state management (save/load), input (press_buttons), info retrieval (get_info), and screenshot. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow the pattern 'mgba_' followed by a descriptive verb or verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., advance_frames, read16, save_state). The naming is uniform and predictable, with clear size suffixes for read/write tools.
Tool Count5/518 tools is a well-scoped count for an emulator control server. Each tool addresses a specific need without redundancy, covering emulation flow, memory manipulation, state persistence, input, and diagnostics.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: start/reset, pause/resume, single-step, memory read/write at all common widths, state save/load (slot or file), screenshot, input queuing, and info. No obvious gaps exist for typical emulation debugging or automation tasks.
Average 4.9/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 44 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'DESTRUCTIVE TO TARGET FILE if `path` is supplied: overwrites the file at `path` if it exists, with no prompt or backup.' It also covers error conditions (missing parent directory, missing method), meeting the full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, when to use, behavior including side effects, error conditions, and return format. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by explaining the behavior when omitted ('omit to let mGBA pick a filename in its default screenshot directory and return that path'), which is not inferred from the schema alone. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Save a PNG screenshot of the current emulator display to a file.' It clearly identifies the verb 'save' and resource 'screenshot', distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage section provides clear context: 'capture visible game state for inspection, comparison across savestates, or sequence documentation.' It also gives explicit prerequisite steps like 'pause / advance frames / load state first.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, missing a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states: 'No side effects — pure read of emulator metadata. Returns '(unavailable)' for fields the loaded core can't expose... Never throws on a partial read.' Covers safety, error behavior, and partial data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS headings. Front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could tighten phrasing slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description thoroughly explains return format: multi-line text with Title, Code, Platform, Frame, and capabilities lists. Covers edge cases (unavailable fields, partial reads). Complete for a metadata read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters. Rubric gives baseline 4 for 0-param tools. Description adds no param info (none needed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states specific verb+resource: 'Get the loaded ROM's title, internal game code, platform identifier, current frame count, and a capabilities map.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like advancing frames or saving states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance: 'Call after mgba_ping at the start of a session to identify the loaded ROM and feature-detect optional capabilities BEFORE invoking tools that depend on them.' Also explains how platform field affects memory addressing, providing when-to-use and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it modifies run state, confirms all other tool calls still work, notes build-dependency with a capability check, and clarifies that calling pause when already paused is a no-op. This exceeds what annotations would typically provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS), making it easy to scan. While every sentence adds value, there is a slight redundancy in explaining that memory reads/writes work regardless of pause state, which could be more concise. Still, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage boundaries, behavioral implications, dependencies, error handling, and return value. The RETURNS line explicitly states the output format. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'PURPOSE: Pause emulation — freeze the game-logic clock and hold the current frame on screen.' The verb 'Pause' and resource 'emulation' are clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like mgba_unpause and mgba_advance_frames by explaining their differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The USAGE section provides explicit when-to-use ('before a sequence of memory-inspect / write / screenshot calls') and when-not-to-use ('for one-shot reads it's optional') guidance. It also names alternatives: mgba_unpause for resuming and mgba_advance_frames for stepping frames without leaving pause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses destructive nature (no undo), debug-direct memory access bypassing MBC and bus protections, behavior for writes to ROM/SRAM regions, and error conditions (unmapped address, out-of-range value). This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). While somewhat lengthy, every sentence provides necessary guidance. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers return format and error conditions. It also notes the tool works even when emulation is paused. For a mutation tool with detailed side effects, the description is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context beyond schema: address conventions for GBA/GB, MBC bypass implications, and that value errors return before write attempt. This enriches parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a single unsigned byte to emulated memory, specifies value range and address domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools (mgba_write16, mgba_write32, mgba_write_range) by stating when to prefer them, and from save/load state for cartridge SRAM seeding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists appropriate uses (single-byte cheats, debug pokes, mutations) and explicitly says when not to use this tool (prefer write16/write32 for larger values, write_range for spans, save/load state for cartridge SRAM). Also suggests snapshotting via save_state as a precaution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Extremely detailed: describes destructive nature (overwrites with no undo), bypasses MBC/mapper/DMA, specifics on Game Boy MBC cartridge behavior (writes to ROM don't trigger bank-switch, SRAM writes hit buffer regardless of enable state). Lists all error conditions. Since no annotations provided, description fully carries the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, NOTE). Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but still efficient given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all aspects: purpose, when to use, behavior, parameters, error handling, return value, and important behavioral notes (MBC bypass). No output schema, but description explains the return string format. Complete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The tool description adds extra context (address conventions for GBA vs GB, debug-direct access, sequential writing, bytes 0-255). Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it writes a contiguous byte sequence to emulated memory. Distinguishes from sibling mgba_write8 by noting it's for seeding more than ~4 bytes to avoid multiple round-trips. Lists concrete use cases like installing cheat tables, patching code blocks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear guidance on when to use (seeding >4 bytes) and when not (for cart save RAM with MBC semantics, use mgba_save_state/mgba_load_state instead). Mentions batch size limitation (4096 bytes) and alternative approach for larger writes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses destructive nature ('replaces ALL current emulator state'), lists what is lost (RAM, registers, etc.), and warns about compatibility issues with mismatched ROM/version. Covers error conditions and return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy due to comprehensive detail. Nearly optimal for the information density required.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral side effects, parameter constraints, error handling, and return values. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds significant value: clarifies mutual exclusivity, error cases for empty slot/out-of-range, and compatibility details for path. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Restore the emulator from a previously saved slot or .ss state file.' Distinguishes from sibling mgba_reset (start fresh) and identifies as counterpart to mgba_save_state. Verb+resource+scope is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists use cases (undo writes, jump to bookmark, start from baseline) and alternative mgba_reset for fresh start. Also specifies that exactly one of slot/path must be supplied, providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: queue is appended (not overwritten), press fires asynchronously, returns immediately with queue size, and errors on invalid buttons or missing bridge support. This covers all important side effects and async behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and provides comprehensive information. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity, but overall it's efficient for its depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: return format, error conditions, async behavior, and usage scenarios. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema already includes descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context: typical frames values (2-4 for tap, higher for held movement), release_frames purpose (avoid debounce), and case sensitivity for button names. This enriches understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends a button-press to the input FIFO, specifying hold and release frames. It distinguishes itself from mgba_advance_frames by noting the latter advances emulation without queueing inputs. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: use to drive games with input, explains that consecutive calls produce distinct edge events, and advises on sending two presses for reliable double-tap. It also tells when to use alternatives: mgba_advance_frames for manual advance, and mgba_pause for inspecting side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: pure read with no side effects, memory access details (two bytes, little-endian), and error conditions for unmapped addresses or region boundaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and is concise with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: covers purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and error conditions. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the single parameter well (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable context about alignment, region-specific address hints, and error scenarios, going beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool reads an unsigned 16-bit little-endian value from emulated memory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternative tools (mgba_read8, mgba_read32, mgba_read_range) uses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: for 16-bit fields, and explicitly states when to use alternatives for different data sizes or endianness. It also mentions alignment considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. Discloses no side effects, addresses flaky native read32 and transparent routing, error conditions (unmapped address, readRange failure), and return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with clear headings (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loads the essential purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, description is fully complete: covers purpose, usage, behavioral details (flakiness, routing), error conditions, and return format. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers address parameter fully, but description adds valuable extra context: alignment warnings, platform-specific address examples (GBA vs GB/GBC), and error conditions. This goes beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Read'), resource ('unsigned 32-bit little-endian value from emulated memory'), and format. Differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for 8/16-bit reads and big-endian/unligned reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (32-bit fields like timestamps, pointers, RGBA colours) and when not (use mgba_read8/read16 for smaller, mgba_read_range for complex). Also provides practical examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses no side effects (pure read), error conditions (address out of range, missing bridge method), and includes full address space maps for both GBA and GB/GBC, compensating for absent annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and address maps, but slightly verbose for a simple read8. However, the comprehensiveness justifies the length given dual-platform support.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, return format, error conditions, and platform-specific address spaces. No gaps for agent invocation despite no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds significant value beyond the input schema by explaining address format differences between GBA (32-bit) and GB/GBC (16-bit) and listing valid address ranges from memory maps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Read an unsigned 8-bit byte from emulated memory' and distinguishes from siblings like mgba_read16, mgba_read32, and mgba_read_range by specifying use cases for different data sizes and spans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance (single-byte flags, counters, 8-bit fields) and when-not-to-use (prefer read16/32 for larger values, read_range for spans >4 bytes). Also advises pausing for coherent multi-read snapshots.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses destructive behavior: RAM indeterminate, CPU reset, frame count reset, input queue clear, audio/video discard, unsaved progress loss, build-dependency, and error handling. This exceeds the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled 'PURPOSE', 'USAGE', 'BEHAVIOR', 'RETURNS' sections, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, return value, error conditions, and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details but explains the operation's effects, which is valuable context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Reset the loaded ROM — equivalent to pressing the reset button on the GBA / Game Boy.', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling mgba_load_state by contrasting with returning to a saved state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description directly advises when to use ('start fresh from boot') and when to use an alternative ('use mgba_load_state for a saved point'), naming the sibling tool explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior (overwrites without prompt), state version binding to ROM and mGBA version, and error conditions. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured with clear labeled sections. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return values and all relevant error scenarios. It covers the tool's full context, including limitations and prerequisites, making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context: slot management by mGBA, path requirements (absolute, parent directory must exist), and capability dependency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Save the entire emulator state' and enumerates exactly what is saved (RAM, CPU/PPU/APU registers, etc.). It clearly distinguishes between the two invocation modes (slot vs path) and contrasts with sibling tools like mgba_load_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage scenarios: rollback point, bookmarking, sharing, seeding SRAM. Clearly states the mutual exclusivity of arguments and advises when to use slots vs paths. References the companion tool mgba_load_state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses: modifies run state, build-dependency, need to check capabilities, error handling, and no-op behavior when not paused. No annotations present, so description fully covers behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured into clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) with no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, description covers all necessary context: behavior, usage constraints, return value, and sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema; description adds no param info as none exist. Rule sets baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Resume emulation after a pause', clearly identifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from counterparts mgba_pause and mgba_advance_frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when to use: 'after a paused inspection sequence is complete', and when not: 'To advance only a few frames...use mgba_advance_frames instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior ('overwrites four bytes with no undo'), bypassing MBC/mapper/DMA, and error conditions (unmapped address, boundary crossing, negative value, missing bridge method). The NOTE adds context about debug-direct access and hardware semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, NOTE). Every sentence is informative with no redundancy. Length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description documents the return format and error conditions. It covers edge cases (alignment, MBC bypass, boundary crossing). The NOTE provides important hardware context. All critical behavioral aspects are addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: address alignment instructions, endianness mapping, and specific error cases for negative values. It also clarifies the note about SRAM seeding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the action ('write 32-bit little-endian value') and the target resource ('emulated memory at given system bus address'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings (mgba_write8, mgba_write16, mgba_write_range) by specifying bit-width and byte-order use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The USAGE section explicitly states when to use this tool (32-bit cheats, timestamps, counters, pointers) and provides alternatives ('for 8/16-bit use mgba_write8/write16', 'for big-endian byteswap and use mgba_write_range'). It also advises snapshotting before writes for rollback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it advances the frame clock, does not change pause state, costs ~16ms per frame wall-clock, is build-dependent, and returns an error if capability missing. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. Every sentence provides essential information; no redundancy or unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format. For a single-parameter tool with moderate complexity, all aspects (input, behavior, edge cases) are covered completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value: default value of 1, latency scaling (~16ms per frame), and explicit formula for new frame count. Surpasses baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Step emulation by exactly N frames synchronously and return the new frame count.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like mgba_save_state/load_state for long jumps and mgba_unpause for real-time playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (frame-precise automation, after reset, settling state) and when not to use (long jumps, real-time playback), with named alternatives (mgba_save_state/load_state, mgba_unpause).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'No side effects — pure liveness probe', mentions timeout behavior, and error conditions. Fully discloses behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Concise without redundancy; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers all necessary information: purpose, usage, behavior, error conditions, and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description implicitly confirms no parameters needed and adds meaning by explaining the toll's purpose and return value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'liveness probe' and 'verify connection' with the specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'mGBA Lua bridge'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being a pure probe without side effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Call this once at start-of-session before issuing other tool calls' and explains that success guarantees reachability but individual tools may fail based on capabilities. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavior: no side effects, error conditions (length limits, unmapped memory), and return format. Thorough disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with clear headers (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS), front-loaded, every sentence adds unique value. Perfect length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully describes return format despite no output schema, provides bridge limitations and workflow examples. No gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds significant context: address conventions, chunking rationale, and error semantics for length and unmapped regions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a contiguous range of bytes and returns a hex dump. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mgba_read8 by emphasizing efficiency for large reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use when needing more than ~4 bytes, mentions maximum 4096 bytes and chunking strategy, and provides workflow examples. No explicit when-not, but sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior (overwrites two bytes, no undo), debug-direct memory access bypassing MBC, error conditions, and return format. No ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, NOTE). Every sentence provides essential information; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (alignment, endianness, MBC interactions, error cases) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete, covering all critical aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value: alignment requirement (2-byte aligned), endianness details (LSB/MSB), and MBC bypass implications for the address parameter. The value parameter's range is reinforced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a 16-bit little-endian value to emulated memory, specifies the verb ('write') and resource ('emulated memory'), and differentiates from siblings by naming alternative tools for different sizes and endianness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (for 16-bit cheats/pokes) and when not (use mgba_write8 for single bytes, mgba_write32 for 32-bit, mgba_write_range for big-endian, mgba_save_state/mgba_load_state for proper MBC semantics). Provides clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dmang-dev/mcp-mgba'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server