Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Serial MCP Server

Serial MCP Server

by es617
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

serial.spec.register

Register a serial protocol specification file by validating its YAML front-matter and adding it to the index.

Instructions

Register a spec file in the index. Validates YAML front-matter (requires kind: serial-protocol and name). The file path can be absolute or relative to CWD.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "serial.spec.register"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the spec markdown file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation of YAML front-matter and path handling, but omits important behaviors such as idempotency, permissions required, what happens on validation failure, or whether it overwrites existing registrations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action 'Register a spec file in the index'. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers validation and path constraints. However, it lacks information about return values or success/failure indicators, which is important for a registration action. The absence of output schema increases the need for descriptive completeness.

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 100% with a basic description. The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that the path can be absolute or relative to CWD and specifying the YAML front-matter validation requirements, which is valuable context for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Register a spec file in the index', specifying the action and resource. It also provides distinct validation requirements ('kind: serial-protocol and name'), setting it apart from sibling tools like serial.spec.attach or serial.spec.read.

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 when to use (to add a spec file to the index) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when not to use or when to prefer serial.spec.attach or serial.spec.template. It provides clear context but lacks guidance on selection.

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