ESP RainMaker MCP Server

Official

by espressif

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even those that seem similar (e.g., get_nodes vs get_node_details vs get_node_status vs get_params) are well-differentiated with explicit usage guidance in descriptions. The convenience function add_device_to_room is distinct from create_group and update_group.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_group, get_node_details, set_params). Even login_instructures, while noun_verb, is a clear action. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for the ESP RainMaker domain. The count is within the recommended range, covering login, groups, nodes, and schedules without unnecessary duplication.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core CRUD for groups and nodes (create, read, update) and schedule management (add, edit, remove, enable, disable). However, missing operations like delete_group and delete_node represent minor gaps that agents might encounter.
Average 4.2/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state behavior on session expiry or side effects. With no annotations, it partially discloses the tool's nature but lacks depth.
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?
Single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. Clearly front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and low complexity, the description is complete. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, which is fully covered.
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 the verb 'checks' and resource 'valid login session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like login_instructions. It provides a specific purpose with no ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., login_instructions). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for calling this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step process (adding to parent group then room) and mentions the underlying hierarchy requirement. It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but for a simple tool this is reasonable.
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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a multi-step explanation, and parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
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?
For a tool with 2 simple string parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, steps, and parameters adequately. It could mention error cases (e.g., missing group), but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds basic meaning: device_node_id is the node ID, room_group_id is the group ID. It does not provide examples, format, or additional constraints, but it compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 that the tool adds a device to a room with automatic parent group handling, distinguishing it from siblings like create_group or get_node_details. The verb 'add' and resource 'device to room' are unambiguous.
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 explains the hierarchical behavior and positions it as a convenience function for the ESP RainMaker requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or when to use update_group).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks details on side effects (overwrite vs merge), required permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. A simple 'Set parameters' is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
Concise, well-structured with parameter list and example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers input semantics. Missing behavioral details are already penalized in transparency, but otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining node_id format (comma-separated) and providing an example for params_dict, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Set parameters') and resource ('nodes'), with explicit example. Distinguishes from sibling get_params (retrieval) and set_schedule (scheduling).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for bulk operations ('When multiple node IDs are provided... useful for turning off multiple devices') but does not mention when not to use or alternatives beyond what sibling names imply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries burden. It discloses editing and node management but does not specify whether it is destructive, idempotent, or requires permissions. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise paragraph followed by parameter list. Well-structured but repetitive of schema titles. No wasted words.
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?
Covers operation, parameters, and constraints. Output schema exists so return values not needed. Lacks behavioral details like merge vs replace for custom_data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in plain language, including formats like 'comma-separated list' and 'JSON string', and adding the constraint of at least one parameter.
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?
Description clearly states 'Edit an existing group's properties and manage nodes', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' and 'get_group_details'.
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?
Description implies use for editing groups but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The constraint 'At least one parameter must be provided' is helpful but not a full guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description compensates by detailing the response structure, trigger format, and action naming. However, it does not disclose read-only nature explicitly or mention error handling for missing nodes.
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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, response details, and a trigger guide. It is slightly verbose but the information is valuable and organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description still thoroughly explains the response, including trigger format and an example. It also cross-references get_node_details, making the tool contextually complete for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single required parameter 'node_id', the description fails to explain what node_id represents (e.g., format, source, relationship to get_nodes). This is a significant gap.
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 'Get schedule information for a specific node', specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'schedule information'. It distinguishes from siblings like set_schedule (write) and get_node_details (node info) by focusing on schedules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies read usage and cross-references get_node_details for device type mapping, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions beyond the implicit reading vs. writing distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description implies a read operation by saying 'get' but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. It focuses on scope and purpose but lacks behavioral details like auth or side effects.
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?
Extremely concise: a single short paragraph with the core action upfront, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read operation, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and differentiation from siblings. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no extra detail about the node_id parameter (e.g., format, source, expected values). It merely rephrases 'specific node' from the tool name, adding little value beyond the schema.
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 the tool retrieves current parameters/state for a specific node, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_node_details by emphasizing it provides only state information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly defines when to use the tool (user asks for parameters/state/current values, already have other info) and when not to use it (for comprehensive info, use get_node_details), with clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that instructions are Markdown-formatted and rendering depends on the client, and that the server relies on locally saved credentials from the CLI. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is implied. Overall, it adds valuable context.
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 three concise sentences, each adding relevant information: purpose, dependency on CLI, and Markdown rendering note. No extraneous content; perfectly front-loaded.
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?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and key context. However, it could mention that no login action is performed, only instructions are provided. Still, it is sufficient for a simple tool.
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?
No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds nothing about parameters, but baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool as per guidelines.
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 the verb ('provides') and resource ('instructions' formatted with Markdown) for login using the ESP RainMaker CLI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_login_status by being the only tool that offers instructions.
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 usage when login instructions are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., check_login_status for login state or get_nodes for managing nodes). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It honestly states it returns only status, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling or response format. Given simplicity, it's mostly adequate.
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 concise, with only three lines and bullet points for usage guidelines. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It lacks error or prerequisite details but is still sufficient for basic status retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'node_id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. No guidance on how to obtain or format the ID is given, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
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 the tool retrieves ONLY the online/offline status for a specific node, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_node_details' by explicitly noting that comprehensive info is available through that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit conditions for when to use this tool (user asks about status/online/offline) and when not to (for comprehensive info, use 'get_node_details' instead). This clear guidance helps the agent select the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the effects of each operation and multi-node behavior, and warns about action keys using device type names. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure on error handling, validation, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.
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 well-structured with clear sections and examples, front-loading the purpose. Although somewhat lengthy due to the trigger guide, the detail is necessary for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (eight parameters, no annotations), the description is highly complete: it covers parameter details, multi-node behavior, trigger format with examples, action format, and a note on device types. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, required operations, and providing detailed format guides for trigger and action parameters, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Manage schedules for one or more nodes' and lists specific operations (add, edit, remove, enable, disable), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_schedules (read-only) and set_params (different purpose).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each operation and parameter requirements, and provides guidance for multi-node behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, description adequately discloses the create operation, parameters, and usage examples. It does not detail response or side effects but is sufficiently transparent.
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?
Description is well-structured with purpose, parameter list, and examples. Slightly verbose due to examples, but front-loaded and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, provides usage guidance, and examples. No major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by listing all parameters with detailed explanations, examples, and recommendations (e.g., mutually_exclusive, parent_group_id for rooms).
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?
Description clearly states 'Create a new group (home, room, or custom group)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_group and add_device_to_room.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides clear context for creating groups with types and examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives like update_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains behavior for different group_id values, include_nodes flag, and default field behavior. Lacks explicit mention of read-only nature or side effects.
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?
Well-structured with sections, but somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose, uses markdown and tables for clarity. A few sentences could be trimmed without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers all scenarios: summary mode vs. detailed, use cases, and example JSON. With an output schema defined, return value explanation is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains all four parameters: their purpose, optionality, and effect on output. Adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.
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 starts with 'Get comprehensive group information', clearly defining the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_details and get_nodes by focusing on groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides extensive usage guidelines with recommended parameter combinations and a query-type table. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It states it returns 'list of node IDs (names) without detailed information.' This is adequate but lacks details like ordering or limits; output schema may compensate.
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?
Condensed to two sentences plus bullet and alternative tool. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low complexity (0 params, output schema exists). Description fully covers purpose and usage context.
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?
No parameters, so baseline 4. Description adds no parameter info as none exist.
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?
Description clearly states it gets node IDs/names without detailed info, and distinguishes from sibling get_node_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (user asks for node IDs, device names, list of devices) and when to use alternative (get_node_details for comprehensive info).
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 are provided, so the description fully takes on the responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: the tool makes a single API call, the return type changes based on whether a single node or all nodes are requested, the result is an empty dict if the node is not found, and errors occur for unsupported inputs like comma-separated lists. This is thorough for a read operation.
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 well-structured with clear headings (USAGE, FILTERING, etc.) and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no fluff, but could be slightly more concise; for instance, the 'PREFERRED TOOL' statement could be integrated into the main text. Overall, every sentence adds value, but some repetition exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, all optional, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, parameter explanations, edge cases (not-found, errors), return values, and examples. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity for the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so effectively: node_id (None for all, single string, no lists), fields (comma-separated), name (substring match on user-visible name), type_ (substring match on device type). The description adds critical usage context and examples that go far beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 explicitly states this is the 'PREFERRED TOOL for getting comprehensive node information efficiently', highlighting that it retrieves config, status, and params in a single API call. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_status and get_params by offering combined data efficiently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (when comprehensive data is needed efficiently) and when not to (e.g., avoid comma-separated node IDs; instead use filtering with node_id=None). It explains the default behavior for node_id and offers examples. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_node_status or get_params for specific use cases.
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:

[![esp-rainmaker-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/espressif/esp-rainmaker-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/espressif/esp-rainmaker-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![esp-rainmaker-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/espressif/esp-rainmaker-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/espressif/esp-rainmaker-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/espressif/esp-rainmaker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server