Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Serial MCP Server list available serial ports"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for serial port communication, enabling LLMs to interact with hardware devices via serial connections.
List available serial ports
Open/close serial port connections
Read and write data to serial ports
Control serial signals (DTR, RTS, CTS, DSR, DCD)
Support for custom baud rates, data bits, stop bits, and parity
JSON and Markdown output formats
Related MCP server: UART MCP Server
# Install from PyPI (when published)
pip install serial-mcp-new# Run with stdio transport (default, for local use)
serial-mcp "mcpServers": {
"ssh-mcp": {
"command": "C:\\Users\\DELL\\AppData\\Local\\Packages\\PythonSoftwareFoundation.Python.3.11_qbz5n2kfra8p0\\LocalCache\\local-packages\\Python311\\Scripts\\serial-mcp.exe",
"args": [],
"env": {}
}
},Tool | Description |
| List all available serial ports |
| Open a serial port connection |
| Close a serial port connection |
| Write data to a serial port |
| Read data from a serial port |
| Set control signal states |
| Read current signal states |
| List all active connections |
List available ports:
serial_list_ports()Open a connection:
serial_open(port="COM3", baud_rate=115200)Write data:
serial_write(connection_id="conn_1", data="Hello, device!")Read response:
serial_read(connection_id="conn_1", timeout=2.0)Close when done:
serial_close(connection_id="conn_1")Python 3.10+
mcp >= 1.6.1
pyserial >= 3.5
pydantic >= 2.0.0
MIT
Close a serial port connection.
Closes the specified serial port connection and releases resources. The connection ID becomes invalid after closing.
Args: params (ClosePortInput): Validated input parameters containing: - connection_id (str): Connection ID returned by serial_open
Returns: str: Success message or error message.
Success response: "Connection closed: conn_1" Error response: "Error: Connection 'conn_1' not found"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that the connection ID becomes invalid after closing, which is beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description (closing an already closed connection likely returns an error, not destruction). No contradictions found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (a few sentences), well-structured with sections for description, parameters, and returns. It front-loads the core purpose. Minor redundancy in the first line repeating the title, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, output schema provided, idempotent annotation), the description is complete. It covers input, output examples, and side effects (invalidated ID). No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'connection_id' with its purpose and origin ('Connection ID returned by serial_open'), adding value beyond the input schema which only provides a brief description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Close a serial port connection' and explains that it closes the specified port and releases resources. It clearly identifies the action (close) and the resource (serial port connection), distinguishing it from sibling tools like serial_open or serial_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that the connection ID becomes invalid after closing, implying it should be used after a successful serial_open. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., if a connection is already closed, no action needed) or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the current state of serial port signals.
Returns the current state of all control signals including input signals (CTS, DSR, DCD) and output signals (DTR, RTS).
Args: params (GetSignalsInput): Validated input parameters containing: - connection_id (str): Connection ID returned by serial_open - response_format (ResponseFormat): Output format (default: 'markdown')
Returns: str: Formatted signal states or error message.
Success format for JSON: { "connection_id": "conn_1", "dtr": true, "rts": false, "cts": true, "dsr": true, "dcd": false }
Error response: "Error: Connection 'conn_1' not found or not open"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so description adds context like exact signals and return format. No contradictions; description complements annotations well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then details parameters and return format. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and error case. Output schema provides detailed return structure, so no need to repeat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions for params inside GetSignalsInput? Actually the schema includes descriptions for connection_id and response_format, but context says 0% coverage – likely an error in context. Assuming low coverage, description adds meaning by listing signal names and showing example JSON structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the current state of serial port signals, listing specific input (CTS, DSR, DCD) and output (DTR, RTS) signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like serial_set_signals which writes signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a read-only tool, and annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true. It does not explicitly exclude when to use other tools, but the sibling context (serial_set_signals) provides natural contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all active serial port connections.
Returns information about all currently open serial port connections.
Args: params (ListConnectionsInput): Validated input parameters containing: - response_format (ResponseFormat): Output format (default: 'markdown')
Returns: str: Formatted list of connections or empty message.
Success format for JSON: [ { "id": "conn_1", "port": "COM3", "baud_rate": 9600, "path": "COM3", "is_open": true, "created_at": "2024-01-15T10:30:00Z" } ]
Error response: "No active connections"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description confirms this by stating it 'lists' connections and does not modify anything. It adds that the tool returns a formatted list or error message, and provides example output, which is helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary line, followed by details on arguments and returns. It is concise but includes a detailed JSON example which aids understanding. Minor redundancy with the Args/Returns section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low parameter count (1), high annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format and provides example output. Could mention that this only shows active connections (not all ports), which is implied but not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (the single parameter 'params' is a wrapper, not directly described). The description explains the response_format parameter and its default, which adds value beyond the schema. However, the description could better clarify that 'params' is a wrapper object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all active serial port connections, distinguishing it from sibling tools like serial_open, serial_close, and serial_read which perform different operations. The verb 'list' and resource 'active serial port connections' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use (listing active connections) and implies no modification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or differentiate from similar tools like serial_list_ports (which lists available ports, not connections).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available serial ports on the system.
This tool scans the system for available serial ports and returns detailed information about each port including device path, manufacturer, and serial number.
Args: params (ListPortsInput): Validated input parameters containing: - response_format (ResponseFormat): Output format (default: 'markdown')
Returns: str: Formatted list of serial ports.
Success response format: For JSON: Array of port objects with path, manufacturer, serialNumber, etc. For Markdown: Formatted list with port details
Error response: "Error: "
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds return format details and error message format, but no extra behavioral context 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with sections for summary, args, returns, and response formats. It is slightly verbose with the Args section repeating schema info, but overall concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (list ports), annotations cover safety, and output schema exists, the description provides enough detail about input parameters and response formats. No major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (description coverage of params), but the description explains the params parameter and its sub-parameter response_format with its default and format options, adding value over the schema's enum description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all available serial ports on the system with detailed information. It distinguishes itself from siblings like serial_open or serial_write by focusing on enumeration only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to discover serial ports, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude cases. Siblings like serial_list_connections exist, but no comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open a serial port connection.
Opens a new serial port connection with specified parameters. Returns a connection ID that must be used for subsequent operations on this port.
Args: params (OpenPortInput): Validated input parameters containing: - port (str): Serial port path (e.g., 'COM3', '/dev/ttyUSB0') - baud_rate (int): Baud rate (default: 9600) - data_bits (int): Data bits, 5-8 (default: 8) - stop_bits (float): Stop bits, 1.0-2.0 (default: 1.0) - parity (str): Parity: 'N', 'E', or 'O' (default: 'N')
Returns: str: Connection ID or error message.
Success response: "Connection opened: conn_1" Error response: "Error: "
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not elaborate on. It mentions opening a connection but doesn't discuss side effects (e.g., acquiring OS resources, potential errors). With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond 'Opens' and return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, starting with a clear summary sentence. However, it includes a full argument list that largely duplicates the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. The structure is good, with clear sections for Args and Returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (describing the return string) and annotations, the description covers the essential: purpose, required parameter, return format. It could mention that port is required or that connections should be closed, but overall it's adequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the top-level params has no description), but the description provides detailed semantics for all nested parameters (port, baud_rate, data_bits, stop_bits, parity) including defaults and valid values. This compensates well for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it opens a serial port connection and returns a connection ID for subsequent operations. This distinguishes it from siblings like serial_close, serial_read, and serial_write, which operate on an existing connection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the returned connection ID must be used for subsequent operations, implying the tool is a first step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use serial_list_ports first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read data from a serial port connection.
Reads available data from the serial port up to the specified maximum bytes. Times out after the specified timeout period if no data is available.
Args: params (ReadDataInput): Validated input parameters containing: - connection_id (str): Connection ID returned by serial_open - max_bytes (int): Maximum bytes to read (default: 1024, max: 65536) - timeout (float): Read timeout in seconds (default: 1.0) - encoding (str): Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') - response_format (ResponseFormat): Output format (default: 'markdown')
Returns: str: Formatted data or error message.
Success format for JSON: { "connection_id": "conn_1", "bytes_read": 42, "hex": "48656c6c6f", "data": "Hello", "timestamp": "2024-01-15T10:30:00Z" }
Error response: "Error: Connection 'conn_1' not found or not open"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds details about timeouts, max bytes, and encoding, but doesn't disclose potential issues like blocking or error behaviors beyond the example. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, but it is slightly verbose for a read operation. The inclusion of full success and error examples adds length; could be more concise while maintaining clarity. Still, it's well-organized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter that is a nested object with 5 subfields), the output schema exists, and annotations are provided, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format with examples and error responses. However, it doesn't mention how to handle partial reads or empty data, which could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role (connection_id, max_bytes, timeout, encoding, response_format) with defaults and constraints. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how parameters affect behavior, like timeout meaning 'times out after specified period if no data'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads data from a serial port connection, specifying the verb 'Read', the resource 'serial port connection', and key constraints like reading up to max_bytes with a timeout. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading data versus opening, closing, or writing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning connection_id returned by serial_open and default/timeout values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternative tools like serial_write, missing some guidance for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set control signal states on a serial port connection.
Sets the DTR (Data Terminal Ready) and/or RTS (Request To Send) control signals.
Args: params (SetSignalsInput): Validated input parameters containing: - connection_id (str): Connection ID returned by serial_open - dtr (Optional[bool]): DTR signal state (True=HIGH, False=LOW, None=unchanged) - rts (Optional[bool]): RTS signal state (True=HIGH, False=LOW, None=unchanged)
Returns: str: Success message or error message.
Success response: "Signals set on conn_1: DTR=HIGH, RTS=LOW" Error response: "Error: Connection 'conn_1' not found or not open"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, consistent with modifying signals. Description adds that DTR/RTS can be set to HIGH/LOW or left unchanged. No annotation contradiction. It does not detail error cases beyond connection not found, but this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with 3 short paragraphs, front-loaded purpose, then parameter details, then return format. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple input (1 param with 3 fields), output schema present, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is complete. It explains return messages and error response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and valid values (True/False/None). This adds value beyond schema, especially for optional parameters with defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets control signal states on a serial port connection, specifying DTR and RTS. It distinguishes from siblings like serial_get_signals (read) and serial_open (open connection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (after opening a connection via serial_open), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. Context signals show sibling tools like serial_get_signals for reading, providing differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Write data to a serial port connection.
Writes the specified data string to the serial port using the specified encoding.
Args: params (WriteDataInput): Validated input parameters containing: - connection_id (str): Connection ID returned by serial_open - data (str): Data to write as a string - encoding (str): Text encoding (default: 'utf-8') - timeout (float): Write timeout in seconds (default: 5.0)
Returns: str: Success message with bytes written or error message.
Success response: "Wrote 12 bytes to conn_1" Error response: "Error: Connection 'conn_1' not found or not open"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool writes data, which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation, confirming it modifies state. It also describes success and error messages, which adds transparency beyond annotations. The readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are consistent with the description. No contradictions found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes a lengthy parameter breakdown (Args section) that could be streamlined. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the detailed parameter listing adds redundancy given the schema already provides that information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (write operation with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the operation, parameters, and expected output examples. It could mention prerequisite steps (serial_open) more explicitly, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage (the schema itself has good parameter descriptions), the description adds value by summarizing the parameters (connection_id, data, encoding, timeout) and explaining their roles, including defaults. This compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions, though it partly duplicates schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes data to a serial port connection, specifying the action ('Write data to a serial port connection') and the primary parameters (data, encoding, timeout). This distinguishes it from siblings like serial_read, serial_open, etc. However, it could be more concise in stating its core purpose without the detailed parameter breakdown that is better placed in parameter descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after serial_open and before serial_close, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It mentions that connection_id must be from serial_open, which provides some context, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for other write scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on serial ports: opening, closing, listing ports/connections, reading, writing, and getting/setting signals. There is no ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'serial_verb' pattern (e.g., serial_open, serial_read, serial_write, serial_close, etc.), making it easy to predict tool names.
With 8 tools covering connection management, data I/O, and signal control, the count is well-scoped for a serial port server. No tool feels unnecessary or missing.
The toolset covers the core operations: open, close, list ports, list connections, read, write, get/set signals. A potential gap is flushing buffers or handling break conditions, but these are advanced and not essential.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Gateway between LLM agents and world data through eight tools and a bundled endpoint catalog.
Operate Linux, macOS and Windows from your LLM. Every action runs through an auditable allowlist.
Protocol-native energy infrastructure orchestration for AI data centers. Provides 46 MCP tools across 8 grid protocols (IEC-61850, DNP3, Modbus, OCPP, OpenADR, IEEE 2030.5, IEC 60870-5-104, ICCP) with 5 core API primitives: connect, dispatch, settle, comply, and intel. Enables AI agents to programmatically interact with substations, grid interfaces, and energy assets for real-time workload-grid coordination.
Give your agent live data from Twitter, Reddit, the web and GitHub. No API keys, no scraping stack.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ifindv/serial-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
