arduino-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.8
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the Arduino workflow: installation, board info, compilation, upload, serial operations, and safety checks. Even seemingly overlapping tools like list_connected_boards and list_serial_ports have different purposes (board detection vs port listing). No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., compile_sketch, detect_hardware). However, a few tools like arduino_cli_doctor and safety_preflight break the pattern by starting with a server-specific prefix or using a verb+noun without underscore. Overall consistent but with minor deviations.
Tool Count5/5
21 tools cover the full Arduino development lifecycle—installation, board management, compilation, upload, serial monitoring, and safety checks. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is appropriate for the domain without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core Arduino CLI operations: installation, board detection, compilation, upload, and serial communication. Minor gaps exist, such as library management (install/list libraries) and core updates, but these are secondary to the main workflow. No critical dead ends.
Average 3.7/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention that uploading overwrites the board's firmware, may cause a reset, or that safety checks (like preflight) are bypassed by unsafeSkipPreflight. With destructiveHint already present, the description should add context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness (e.g., adding a brief note about prerequisites). Still, it earns a 4 for avoiding unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, safety implications), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's role in the workflow (e.g., after compilation), when to use unsafeSkipPreflight, or how safetyContext interacts. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain that safetyContext is used for preflight checks or that autoInstallCore automates core installation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (upload), the resource (compiled sketch), and the target (connected board/port). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compile_sketch (compilation vs upload) and read_serial_snapshot (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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. For example, it does not mention that compile_sketch should be run first, or that safety_preflight is recommended.
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?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'release its port lock' but omits error behavior (e.g., invalid session).
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 sentence, 10 words, no redundancy. Perfectly concise.
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?
Output schema exists but not shown; description omits parameter explanation. For a one-param tool, missing param info is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter sessionId is undocumented in both schema (0% coverage) and description. Agent gets no clue about its meaning or constraints.
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 the action 'close' on resource 'serial session' and the effect 'release its port lock'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like serial_open_session and serial_read.
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 on when to use or when not to use. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., session must be open) or alternatives.
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 annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as the fact that compilation may export binaries or modify build directories. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.
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 a single sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no unnecessary words or information.
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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., core installation), output behavior, or response format. The output schema may compensate, but for a complex tool like compilation, more context would be beneficial.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for most parameters (86% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as clarifying the format of sketchPath or the meaning of enums like warnings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compiles an Arduino sketch with a specific board FQBN. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like upload_sketch, which also involve compilation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that the board core must be installed beforehand or that upload_sketch is needed for flashing.
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?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'stateful' and 'port lock ownership', which clarifies side effects. However, it omits details like session lifetime, exclusivity, or error states. It adds some value beyond annotations but is still minimal.
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 sentence, no filler. Every word contributes to meaning. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and key attributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 4 parameters, the description does not explain how the tool fits into a workflow (e.g., opening a session for subsequent read/write/close operations). Given the many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide the agent's tool selection sequence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'port lock ownership', which is not a parameter. No compensation needed, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (open), resource (serial monitor session), and distinctive attributes (stateful, port lock ownership). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_serial_snapshot and serial_read, which operate differently.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., use before serial_read/write), or when not to use. Sibling tools like serial_list_sessions and serial_close_session are relevant but not referenced.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'Safety preflight is enforced unless explicitly skipped,' which provides context about safety checks but does not disclose other behaviors like session validity requirements or blocking nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, a nested safetyContext object, and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks details about return values, error handling, and usage sequence relative to other serial tools. It is insufficiently complete.
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 67%, meaning sessionId and safetyContext lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information to compensate for these gaps.
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 'Write bytes to an open serial session,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like serial_read (read) or serial_open_session (open), so purpose is clear.
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 after opening a session but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like serial_write vs serial_expect. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds 'local' context but does not elaborate on search behavior (e.g., case-sensitivity, partial matching, empty results). Not contradictory.
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 sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the core functionality for a simple search tool with one parameter. Missing error/empty result handling, but acceptable.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains that the query parameter can be a board name, alias, id, or FQBN, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's string type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches local board reference and specifies searchable fields (name, alias, id, FQBN). It distinguishes from siblings like list_board_reference (lists all) and get_board_details (details for one), though not explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_board_reference or get_board_details, nor any exclusions or context prerequisites.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds timeout behavior but does not mention whether the buffer is consumed or side effects; no contradiction, but limited disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing details on behavior upon timeout, pattern matching semantics (regex/literal), or return format; despite output schema, description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 low (20%) and the description adds no extra meaning to parameters like pattern or timeoutMs beyond their names; fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 the verb 'wait', resource 'serial session buffer', and condition 'with timeout', distinguishing it from siblings like serial_read and serial_write.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_serial_snapshot; the description implies usage when expecting a pattern, but lacks exclusions or context.
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?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it 'attempts' install and configures CLI path, but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency details, or failure behavior beyond what annotations convey.
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 concise (one sentence, 20 words) and front-loaded with the key action. It could be more informative about 'configure CLI path' but remains 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 complexity of an installation tool with multiple methods and output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on system modifications, prerequisites, or expected runtime. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions and enums. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 specifies a clear action: install arduino-cli, using package managers, then verify and configure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compile_sketch or upload_sketch.
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 arduino-cli needs to be installed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like compile_sketch. No exclusion or prerequisite 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by specifying 'from the local arduino-cli index', indicating it does not perform network fetches. This clarifies the deterministic nature beyond the annotation. No behavioral contradictions are present.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the need to know that it lists boards from a local index. It does not explain return value structure (handled by output schema) or filtering behavior beyond the search parameter, but the context is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'search', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('supported/installable boards') along with the source ('local arduino-cli index'), making the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like list_connected_boards. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_board_reference or search_board_reference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_board_reference, list_board_reference, get_board_details). There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide which tool to invoke.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds the 'bounded duration' constraint. However, it does not explain what happens after capture (e.g., session handling, return format) or any side effects. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description provides some added 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) for return values. The description is brief but covers the core action. Given the context of many sibling tools, a bit more differentiation would be beneficial, but it is still complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (port, baudRate, durationMs). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (Capture), resource (serial output), and scoping (bounded duration, from a given port). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like serial_read (which reads available data) or serial_open_session (which opens a persistent session).
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., serial_read for continuous reading, serial_expect for pattern matching). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as blocking behavior, how buffering works, or what happens when no bytes are available.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.
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 simple read operation with robust annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and prerequisite. It lacks details like blocking behavior but remains sufficient for an agent.
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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds no further parameter details. For a high schema coverage scenario, this baseline score is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the action (Read), the resource (buffered bytes), and the prerequisite (open serial session), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like serial_write, serial_open_session, and read_serial_snapshot.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_serial_snapshot or other session tools. The description does not specify prerequisites beyond 'open serial session' or indicate suitable scenarios.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the core behavioral traits. The description adds the command used (arduino-cli core install) but does not elaborate on failure modes or prerequisites like network access.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's operation and the auto-install mechanism, though it could be slightly more explicit about error handling or invocation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not detail individual parameters beyond mentioning FQBN and auto-install. The schema itself provides clear descriptions, so the description adds little additional semantic value.
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's purpose: ensuring the Arduino core for a board FQBN is installed, with auto-install capability. It uniquely identifies this as a core management tool distinct from sibling tools like compile_sketch or install_arduino_cli.
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 a core is required for a board, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings include other installation tools.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's mention of 'Get' is consistent. No additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, caching) beyond annotations.
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 sentence, no filler. Efficient and front-loaded with key action and object.
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?
Simple tool with 1 param, output schema present. Description is adequate but could mention prerequisites (e.g., core installed) for completeness. Safe to use with read-only annotation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema's example (arduino:avr:uno). No additional semantics provided 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?
Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'detailed board metadata', and scope 'for a specific FQBN'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_supported_boards by focusing on a single board query.
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?
Implied usage (when you have an FQBN), but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_board_reference or list_supported_boards.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific function (listing connected boards/ports) but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description fully covers what the tool does. No additional detail is necessary.
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 exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds context about what is listed (boards and serial ports) beyond the empty schema, justifying a baseline 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connected boards and serial ports'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_serial_ports (likely only ports) and list_supported_boards (all known boards).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_serial_ports or list_supported_boards. No explicit context or exclusions are given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool uses arduino-cli and is cross-platform, which are minor behavioral traits. No additional details about side effects, permissions, or error conditions are provided.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and result, the second confirms platform compatibility. No unnecessary 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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete for a simple list operation. It covers the action, tool dependency, and platform support. However, it does not hint at what the output schema contains (e.g., fields like port name, board type).
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's general functionality.
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 'list' and the resource 'serial ports', specifying that it also retrieves detected board metadata using arduino-cli. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connected_boards which list boards, not ports.
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?
While the description notes cross-platform support (Windows/macOS/Linux), it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_connected_boards or serial-related tools. The context of platform compatibility is helpful but insufficient for distinguishing usage scenarios.
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?
Annotations indicate destructive hint (true). The description adds context about handling post-upload reset and re-enumeration windows, which is valuable beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention safety preflight or other behavioral details.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words, efficiently conveying the core functionality.
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 complexity (11 params, destructive, output schema exists), the description covers the essential upload-wait behavior and reset handling. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but output schema likely covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 91%, so parameters are already well-described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 uploads a sketch and waits for a serial readiness pattern, highlighting its unique combination of actions. This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_sketch (upload only) and serial_expect (wait only).
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 a readiness pattern is needed after upload, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like upload_sketch without waiting. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that it infers board/FQBN and generates commands. There is no contradiction, and the description provides additional context about the tool's behavior beyond annotations.
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?
A single 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no wasted content.
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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in context) and the description covering the main purpose (detect, infer, generate commands), the description is complete for this tool's complexity. It adequately differentiates from numerous siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's overall function rather than parameter details.
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 uses specific verbs 'detect', 'infer', 'generate' and clearly states the resource (Arduino-compatible hardware) and outcomes (board/FQBN candidates, next compile/upload commands). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_connected_boards' and 'get_board_details' by emphasizing inference and command generation.
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 before compile/upload by saying 'generate next compile/upload commands', but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives like 'list_connected_boards' or 'get_board_details'. No when-not or alternative 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?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint': true already indicates this is a safe, read-only operation, and the description's 'Run electrical preflight checks' is consistent with that. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the checks involve 'voltage/current/pin risks', which goes beyond the annotation. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and timing. Every word is necessary; there is no filler. It is easy to read and efficiently conveys the essential information.
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 has 5 parameters (none required), nested objects, and an output schema, the description captures the core purpose and when to use it. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema exists to handle that. The description is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.
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?
The input schema already describes all parameters (board, fqbn, port, wiring, power) with decent detail, achieving about 60% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it does not improve understanding beyond the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 'Run', the resource 'electrical preflight checks', and the scope 'voltage/current/pin risks'. It also specifies the timing 'before upload or serial write operations', making it distinct from sibling tools like 'compile_sketch' or 'upload_sketch'.
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 explicitly says 'before upload or serial write operations', providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it does not list when not to use it or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate it from sibling tools, which are about other operations like compilation or serial monitoring.
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?
Description adds context beyond readOnlyHint by specifying both sessions and lock state, but does not detail behaviors like scope or prerequisites; annotations already cover read-only nature.
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 sentence, no excess verbiage, front-loaded with the key action and object.
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 no parameters and presence of output schema, the description adequately defines the tool's purpose, though it could briefly mention expected output format or use cases.
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; schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter info; baseline score of 4 applies.
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 lists active serial sessions and port lock state, distinguishing it from siblings that open, close, read, or write sessions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; context from name and siblings implies usage for listing, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the conditional behavior of returning installation instructions if missing, which is transparent and consistent.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words, perfectly concise.
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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for this 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 exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.
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 checks arduino-cli availability and provides installation instructions if missing, a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like install_arduino_cli.
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 before other Arduino operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds scope ('local') and content ('pin/spec metadata'), providing useful context beyond the annotations.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. No unnecessary words or 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 zero parameters, full annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It states what it lists and adds relevant output details.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not, but it hints at the output content ('pin/spec metadata').
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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'local board reference entries' with added detail 'with pin/spec metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_board_reference', which implies a search operation.
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 for listing all local board references, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_board_reference'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
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:

[![arduino-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hardware-mcp/arduino-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hardware-mcp/arduino-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arduino-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hardware-mcp/arduino-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hardware-mcp/arduino-mcp-server)

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/hardware-mcp/arduino-mcp-server'

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