MCP Server Awtrix（mcp-server-awtrix）是一个开源的 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 服务器和声明式指标编排器，旨在让 AI 代理（Antigravity、Claude Desktop、Cursor、Cline、AutoGPT 等）完全控制运行 Awtrix Light 的 Ulanzi TC001 及兼容像素矩阵智能时钟。
它桥接了对话式和自主式 AI 代理与物理桌面显示器，支持：
即时代理警报：将临时状态警报、构建失败通知和任务完成推送到像素屏幕。
动态轮播应用：注册、更新和循环自定义实时遥测应用（服务器健康、SaaS 指标、收入计数器、构建状态）。
声明式指标轮询器：通过 YAML 规范自动化后台 API 获取和阈值格式化，无需编写自定义 Python 脚本。
硬件遥测与控制：检查电池电量、调整矩阵亮度、管理电源状态，并触发自定义声音提示。
Related MCP server: pixoo-mcp-server
运行智能像素时钟（如带 Awtrix Light 的 Ulanzi TC001）的开发者和高级用户目前需要编写零散的、硬编码的 Python 或 Bash cron 脚本来查询外部 API 并更新矩阵应用。
当与 AI 编码代理协作时：
代理必须为每个指标生成并维护原始的命令式代码。
没有标准化的工具集供 AI 代理发送实时通知或管理显示生命周期。
密钥管理容易出错，存在 API 密钥在 AI 提示和日志中泄露的风险。
对于多段文本格式和像素图标，没有原生的回退或验证机制。
原生 MCP 接口：提供一个标准的 Model Context Protocol 服务器，暴露用于通知、自定义应用、设备管理和预览的健壮工具。
声明式遥测：让代理和人类能够在简单的 YAML 文件中定义指标轮询规则，并内置模板（Jinja2）和阈值样式。
安全密钥隔离：通过 .env 环境变量替换，将敏感凭据与提示上下文解耦。
零停机热重载：无需重启服务即可自动反映 YAML 配置文件中的更改。
可靠回退：优雅处理网络中断、API 速率限制和离线显示状态。
替换 Awtrix Light 固件（此工具仅与官方 Awtrix Light REST/MQTT API 交互）。
复杂的多显示器平铺同步（重点是单实例或多实例独立像素时钟）。
用户角色 | 场景 | MCP Server Awtrix 如何帮助 |
AI 编码代理（例如 Antigravity / Cursor） | 代理在后台完成 10 分钟的测试套件或自主任务。 | 调用 |
DevOps / SRE 工程师 | 想要监控生产可用性、错误预算或 Checkly 合成测试。 | 放置 |
SaaS 创始人 / 构建者 | 想要在桌面上循环显示实时 MRR、新用户注册和支持工单计数器。 | 定义查询后端管理端点的声明式多指标应用。 |
FR-1：即时通知 (/api/notify)：
支持自定义文本、多段彩色文本、图标 ID、声音/RTTTL 铃声、优先级保持和持续时间。
FR-2：自定义轮播应用 (/api/custom)：
能够注册、更新和从显示循环中移除命名应用。
支持富文本段格式（[{"t": "FAIL", "c": "FF0000"}, {"t": " (2/10)", "c": "FFFFFF"}]）。
FR-3：声明式后台引擎：
内置调度器（asyncio / apscheduler）执行在 apps/*.yaml 中定义的轮询任务。
支持计算变量、算术和条件表达式的模板引擎。
FR-4：设备状态与遥测：
查询电池百分比、Wi-Fi RSSI、光照传感器、矩阵状态和活动应用。
调整亮度、睡眠/唤醒状态和过渡效果。
FR-5：试运行与模拟：
预览工具，在提交到硬件之前返回精确的渲染 JSON 负载和颜色验证。
延迟：直接 MCP 工具执行必须在本地网络上 $< 150\text{ms}$ 内分发到 Awtrix。
弹性：编排器在将应用标记为降级之前，使用指数退避重试失败的 API 获取。
可移植性：打包为标准 Python 包，支持 uv/pipx、Docker 容器和独立 CLI。
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ AI Client/Host │
│ (Claude / Antigravity / │
│ Cursor / Cline) │
└────────────┬─────────────┘
│
│ stdio / SSE (MCP Protocol)
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ mcp-server-awtrix │
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────┐ │
│ │ MCP Interface │ │ App Orchestrator │ │ Config Watcher │ │
│ │ (Tools / Resources) │ │ (Async Scheduler) │ │ (Hot-Reload) │ │
│ └───────────┬───────────┘ └──────────────┬───────────────┘ └─────────┬─────────┘ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Core Engine & Driver │ │
│ │ - Schema Validator (Pydantic) │ │
│ │ - Template & Expression Engine (Jinja2 / JSONPath) │ │
│ │ - Secret Resolver (.env) │ │
│ │ - Awtrix REST / WebSocket Client │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
│ HTTP REST (JSON)
▼
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ Ulanzi TC001 Clock │
│ (Awtrix Light Firmware)│
└──────────────────────────┘MCP 接口层：
通过 stdio 和 SSE 实现 Model Context Protocol 服务器端点。
为 AI 模型暴露具有严格 JSON 模式和人类可读文档的工具。
声明式轮询引擎：
管理基于文件的应用清单的任务生命周期的异步工作器。
评估 HTTP 请求，使用 JSONPath/表达式提取字段，并解析显示规则。
Awtrix 驱动：
封装设备通信、请求去重、连接池和错误恢复。
配置与安全层：
将敏感令牌隔离到 .env 中。配置文件通过 ${VAR_NAME} 语法引用变量。
AI 代理可以执行以下 MCP 工具：
awtrix_notify向屏幕推送即时、高优先级的通知（中断当前轮播）。
{
"text": "Build Failed: Backend API",
"icon": "10558",
"color": "FF0000",
"duration": 8,
"sound": "alarm",
"rtttl": "beep:d=4,o=5,b=100:16e6,16e6",
"wakeup": true
}awtrix_upsert_app在轮播循环中注册或更新持久自定义应用。
{
"name": "app_users",
"text": [
{"t": "1,420", "c": "FFFFFF"},
{"t": " (+42)", "c": "00FF00"}
],
"icon": "2058",
"duration": 5,
"lifetime": 300
}awtrix_delete_app从设备循环中移除自定义应用。
{
"name": "app_users"
}awtrix_get_device_state返回硬件统计数据和当前运行指标。
响应：
{
"online": true,
"battery": 88,
"charging": true,
"lux": 140,
"temp": 24,
"ram_free": 128440,
"active_app": "app_users",
"brightness": 120
}awtrix_set_settings配置设备参数，如亮度、矩阵开关和过渡速度。
{
"brightness": 80,
"power": true
}awtrix_test_render试运行辅助工具，解析表达式并返回渲染负载，而不推送到硬件。
无需维护自定义 Python 脚本，将 .yaml 清单放在 apps/ 目录中。
apps/checkly.yaml
app_id: "checkly"
name: "checkly_status"
enabled: true
interval_seconds: 60
source:
type: "http"
url: "https://api.checklyhq.com/v1/checks"
headers:
Authorization: "Bearer ${CHECKLY_API_KEY}"
X-Checkly-Account: "${CHECKLY_ACCOUNT_ID}"
transform:
total: "len(data)"
failures: "sum(1 for c in data if c.get('hasFailures'))"
degraded: "sum(1 for c in data if c.get('isDegraded') and not c.get('hasFailures'))"
display:
- condition: "failures > 0"
icon: "10558"
notify: true
text:
- { text: "FAIL ", color: "FF0000" }
- { text: "({{failures}}/{{total}})", color: "FFFFFF" }
- condition: "degraded > 0"
icon: "10558"
text:
- { text: "WARN ", color: "FFA500" }
- { text: "({{degraded}}/{{total}})", color: "FFFFFF" }
- condition: "default"
icon: "483"
text:
- { text: "UP ", color: "00FF00" }
- { text: "({{total}})", color: "FFFFFF" }apps/saas_metrics.yaml
app_id: "saas_metrics"
interval_seconds: 120
source:
type: "http"
url: "https://api.example.com/v1/admin/metrics"
headers:
X-API-Secret: "${SAAS_METRICS_API_SECRET}"
sub_apps:
- name: "app_users"
icon: "2058"
text:
- { text: "{{data.users_total}}", color: "FFFFFF" }
- { text: " (+{{data.new_users_last_week}})", color: "00FF00" }
- name: "app_premium"
icon: "5336"
text:
- { text: "{{data.users_premium}}", color: "FFFFFF" }
- { text: " (+{{data.new_users_premium_last_week}})", color: "FFD700" }
- name: "app_orders"
icon: "21072"
text:
- { text: "{{data.orders_total}}", color: "FFFFFF" }
- { text: " (+{{data.new_orders_last_week}})", color: "00FF00" }
- name: "app_support"
icon: "10558"
show_if: "data.tickets_open > 0"
text:
- { text: "{{data.tickets_open}}", color: "FF0000" }Python 3.10 或更高版本
已刷入 Awtrix Light 固件 的 Ulanzi TC001（或兼容设备），并连接到您的 Wi-Fi 网络。
uv / pip 本地设置# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/klodnickik/mcp-server-awtrix.git
cd mcp-server-awtrix
# Copy example environment configuration
cp .env.example .env
# Edit device address and API keys in .env
# AWTRIX_BASE_URL=http://awtrix3.local在本地通过 stdio 运行 MCP 服务器：
# Using uv (recommended)
uv run mcp-server-awtrix
# Or standard pip
pip install -e .
python -m awtrix_mcp使用 Docker Compose 运行：
# 1. Clone & prepare environment
git clone https://github.com/klodnickik/mcp-server-awtrix.git
cd mcp-server-awtrix
cp .env.example .env
# 2. Start the MCP Server (SSE on port 8000) and Metric Daemon
docker compose up -d
# Or start only the metric poller daemon:
docker compose up -d metric-daemon
# View live logs:
docker compose logs -f添加到您的 mcp_servers.json：
{
"mcpServers": {
"awtrix": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["--directory", "/path/to/mcp-server-awtrix", "run", "mcp-server-awtrix"],
"env": {
"AWTRIX_BASE_URL": "http://awtrix3.local"
}
}
}
}添加到 claude_desktop_config.json：
{
"mcpServers": {
"awtrix": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "awtrix_mcp"],
"env": {
"AWTRIX_BASE_URL": "http://awtrix3.local"
}
}
}
}在 Cursor 设置 $\rightarrow$ 功能 $\rightarrow$ MCP 服务器 $\rightarrow$ 添加服务器：
名称：awtrix
类型：command
命令：uv --directory /path/to/mcp-server-awtrix run mcp-server-awtrix
核心 MCP 工具规范与设计
声明式 YAML 编排模式
使用异步 HTTP 客户端的 FastMCP 实现
矩阵像素艺术的实时视觉 Web 预览
MQTT 传输层支持（REST 的可选替代方案）
Home Assistant 服务发现导出
欢迎贡献！请提交 PR 或打开 issue 进行功能讨论。
根据 MIT 许可证 分发。有关更多信息，请参阅 LICENSE。
Remove a custom app from the display cycle by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the core behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what is destroyed or affected: a custom app's presence in the display cycle. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, scope, and parameter mechanism efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema is present, and annotations cover idempotency and destructive behavior. The description covers the essential target and parameter. Minor gaps remain around exact-name matching and the precise meaning of 'from the display cycle', but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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%, and the description only indicates that removal happens 'by name'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema by relating the 'name' parameter to the custom app identifier, but it does not clarify expected format, uniqueness, or matching behavior. For a single simple parameter, this is adequate but minimal.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), identifies the exact resource ('a custom app from the display cycle'), and specifies the selection mechanism ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like awtrix_upsert_app, which creates or updates an app rather than deleting it.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return current AWTRIX hardware metrics: battery, lux, temperature, active app (if available).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by saying 'current' and 'if available,' signaling that values may change over time and that the active app field can be absent. This is meaningful 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence states the action and the list of returned metrics with no filler. The most important scoping word ('current') appears upfront, and the optionality of the active app is handled compactly.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering idempotence/read-only behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It states exactly what hardware metrics will be returned and does not need to cover return formatting because the output schema exists.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is nothing here that reduces the score; the description instead clarifies what the returned metrics are.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource: current AWTRIX hardware metrics (battery, lux, temperature, active app). It clearly distinguishes this read-only tool from the mutating/action siblings like awtrix_delete_app, awtrix_notify, and awtrix_upsert_app without needing to open the schema.
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 makes it clear this is the status/read tool by saying 'Return current...' while all sibling tools are actions or mutations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent would select this for reading hardware state rather than for changing anything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Push an instant, high-priority notification to the AWTRIX display.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hold | No | ||
| icon | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| rtttl | No | ||
| sound | No | ||
| stack | No | ||
| wakeup | No | ||
| duration | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate open-world behavior and non-idempotency, and the description adds that the notification is pushed instantly with high priority. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or stacking/replacement behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and destination with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
The core call is clear, but the description is minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and several sibling tools. It does not explain optional parameter relationships, duplicate-notification behavior, or when to prefer test_render; the presence of an output schema and annotations softens but does not fill these 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no prose about any of the 9 parameters. The schema's names and defaults are somewhat informative, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, such as what 'text' should contain or how icon/color/sound values are formatted.
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 names the action ('Push'), the object ('notification'), and the destination ('AWTRIX display'), and adds the distinguishing 'instant, high-priority' quality. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools that manage apps, settings, or device state.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as awtrix_test_render or awtrix_upsert_app. The phrase 'instant, high-priority' weakly implies a use case, but the agent has to infer the right context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Configure display brightness, transition animations, and screen power state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| power | No | ||
| brightness | No | ||
| transitions | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety behavior. The description adds a bit of context by listing what settings are affected, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or range constraints beyond the schema.
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 a single, compact sentence that states the action and the key areas affected. It is front-loaded with the verb and wastes no words.
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?
For a simple three-parameter settings tool with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention that all parameters are optional and independently updatable, but the schema already conveys that through defaults and nullability.
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 bears the responsibility for explaining parameters. It only paraphrases the property names (brightness, transitions, power) without adding meaning about value ranges, units, null semantics, or the effect of each flag. The schema reveals defaults but little explanatory content.
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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') and clearly identifies the resource (display settings) while naming the three configurable areas: brightness, transition animations, and screen power state. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like awtrix_notify, awtrix_upsert_app, and awtrix_delete_app.
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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it: whenever display-level settings need to be changed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate and preview a rendered notification/app payload with no hardware side-effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hold | No | ||
| icon | No | ||
| kind | No | app | |
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| rtttl | No | ||
| sound | No | ||
| wakeup | No | ||
| rainbow | No | ||
| duration | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful specificity by stating 'no hardware side-effects', clarifying what read-only means in this hardware context. It does not contradict 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with the action front-loaded and the key safety qualifier stated immediately. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition, filler, or structural waste.
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?
With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and schema defaults for optional parameters, the description is just barely viable for a minimal call using only the required `text` parameter. However, it lacks guidance on the notification/app distinction and advanced fields, and relies heavily on the provided schema and the agent's domain inference.
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%, yet the description provides essentially no parameter-level guidance. It only echoes the 'notification/app payload' concept, which maps to the `kind` enum, but gives no help on ten other parameters, including TextSegment, rtttl, wakeup, rainbow, and color. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 a specific action, 'Validate and preview', applied to a defined resource, 'rendered notification/app payload'. It also distinguishes itself from hardware-affecting siblings by explicitly noting 'no hardware side-effects', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.
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 that this is a safe preview/validation operation, implying it should be used instead of side-effecting tools like awtrix_notify when testing payloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create or update a persistent custom app in the display carousel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icon | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| save | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| repeat | No | ||
| rainbow | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| lifetime | No | ||
| lifetime_mode | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'create or update' and 'persistent'. It adds useful context about the app living in the display carousel and being persistent, but it does not disclose nuances like the effect of the 'save', 'lifetime', or 'lifetime_mode' parameters on persistence, or whether updating an existing app overwrites prior configuration. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the operation ('Create or update') and immediately clarifies the resource and location ('persistent custom app in the display carousel').
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?
Despite having an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the high parameter count, nested TextSegment definition, and zero parameter descriptions make the overall description insufficient. An agent would not know how to construct a valid 'text' payload, when 'save' should be true, or what lifetime/lifetime_mode mean, so the tool cannot be reliably invoked correctly from the description alone.
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 input schema has 10 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention a single parameter (name, text, icon, save, color, repeat, rainbow, duration, lifetime, lifetime_mode), leaving the agent to rely solely on schema titles and defaults. This is insufficient for a schema of this complexity.
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 descrip states a specific verb ('Create or update' — an upsert) and a specific resource ('persistent custom app' in the 'display carousel'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as awtrix_delete_app, awtrix_notify, and awtrix_set_settings because it targets custom app lifecycle management, not deletion, notification, or settings.
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the goal is to create or update a persistent custom app in the carousel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the intended use versus notify or delete siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0awtrix_delete_appawtrix_get_device_stateawtrix_notifyawtrix_set_settingsawtrix_test_renderawtrix_upsert_appScored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: app mutation, instant notification, device state query, settings, and safe preview. notify and test_render are clearly separated by side effects, while upsert_app vs notify is distinguished by persistence and priority.
All tools share the awtrix_ prefix and use snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern. awtrix_notify is a minor outlier because it lacks an explicit object, but the overall naming is still predictable and readable.
Six tools cover a focused display-management scope without redundancy. The count is well within the ideal range, and each tool serves a meaningful purpose.
The set covers app create/update/delete, notifications, settings, device state, and safe payload testing. Missing explicit list/get app endpoints are minor gaps that agents can partially work around using the existing app and state tools.
Run your TRMNL ePaper (e-ink) displays from any AI agent: devices, playlists and new screens.
A real clock for AI agents: current time, timezone conversion, and DST facts from the IANA tzdb.
Display delivery platform for AI agents. Push HTML, dashboards and live data to screens.
Persistent memory and knowledge management for AI agents with semantic search and 50+ tools.
