How do I use pidp10-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@pidp10-mcp open a connection to the PiDP-10 and send ~z to call ITS" 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.

pidp10-mcp

by masto

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

pidp10-mcp

An MCP server for driving an ITS session on a PiDP-10 (simh KA10) emulator over its raw TCP terminal line.

It exists because generic telnet MCP servers do not work against this target: they cannot transmit raw control bytes, they tie the TCP connection's lifetime to tool-call cadence, and they reconnect dead sessions in the background — which, on a port that maps to a single terminal line, produces zombie connections fighting each other for it.

What it does differently

Raw control bytes get through. A ~-escape syntax in send puts exact bytes on the wire: ~z for the Ctrl-Z that calls ITS, ~e for the ESC that DDT prints as $, ~xNN for anything else.
The connection belongs to the server process, not to tool calls. A background reader drains the socket continuously into a 256 KB scrollback. Nothing cares how long the client spends thinking between calls; a three-minute gap is invisible to the session.
It never reconnects on its own. If the socket dies, the session is marked dead and the next tool response says so. Reopening is an explicit decision.
Closes hard. close() sets SO_LINGER to zero so the socket is reset rather than left in a half-closed state that keeps the line marked busy, and the same teardown runs from atexit plus SIGTERM/SIGHUP handlers.
Terse responses. Only output produced since the last call, VT52 noise stripped, followed by one trailer line. No banners, no echoed inputs, no re-dumping the session log.

Related MCP server: mcp-ssh-interactive

Install

Requires Python 3.11+ and the official mcp SDK 2.x.

uv sync                # or: pip install -e .
uv run pidp10-mcp      # stdio transport (default)

claude mcp add pidp10 -- uv --directory /path/to/pidp10/mcp run pidp10-mcp

or by hand, in an mcpServers config block:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pidp10": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["--directory", "/path/to/pidp10/mcp", "run", "pidp10-mcp"],
      "env": { "PIDP10_HOST": "pidp10.local", "PIDP10_PORT": "10018" }
    }
  }
}

Streamable HTTP

uv run pidp10-mcp --http --http-host 127.0.0.1 --http-port 8010

Configuration

Env var	CLI flag	Default	Meaning
`PIDP10_HOST`	`--host`	`pidp10.local`	Emulator host
`PIDP10_PORT`	`--port`	`10018`	Emulator TCP port (one line)
`PIDP10_MCP_HOST`	`--http-host`	`127.0.0.1`	Bind address for `--http`
`PIDP10_MCP_PORT`	`--http-port`	`8010`	Bind port for `--http`

open(host, port) can override the host and port per call.

Escape syntax

Escapes are expanded in send's input. An unknown escape is an error rather than being passed through as text — silently sending ~q to DDT is worse than a rejection.

Escape	Byte	Meaning
`~z`	`0x1A`	Ctrl-Z — calls ITS; a fresh line ignores all other input
`~e`	`0x1B`	ESC / altmode — DDT's `$`
`~c`	`0x03`	Ctrl-C
`~g`	`0x07`	Ctrl-G
`~d`	`0x7F`	Rubout
`~s`	`0x13`	Ctrl-S
`~o`	`0x0F`	Ctrl-O
`~r`	`0x0D`	CR, when an explicit one is wanted mid-line
`~n`	`0x0A`	LF — a DDT command (examine next location), not a newline
`~t`	`0x09`	Tab
`~xNN`	`0xNN`	Any byte, two hex digits
`~~`	`~`	Literal tilde
`~-`	—	At the very end: do not append the automatic CR

Line endings

send appends a CR (0x0D) automatically, because that is what the line editor wants, and normalises any literal LF or CRLF in the input to CR. A bare LF is not a newline on this system — it is a DDT command. If you genuinely want to send one, ~n is exempt from normalisation.

raw=true sends the expanded bytes verbatim: no CR appended, no normalisation.

Tools

Tool	Purpose
`open(host?, port?)`	Connect. Idempotent — reports status if already open. Returns any greeting bytes.
`send(input, expect?, timeout_ms=10000, quiet_ms=700, auto_more=true, raw=false)`	Send input, return the output it produced.
`read(timeout_ms=2000, expect?, quiet_ms=700, auto_more=true)`	Collect more output without sending anything.
`peek(last_n_chars=2000)`	Re-show recent scrollback without moving the read cursor.
`status()`	Connected?, host:port, uptime, bytes, pending output, death reason.
`close()`	Hard-close the socket so the emulator frees the line.

How `send` and `read` decide to return

They return on whichever comes first:

expect (a regex) matches the new output → reason matched
the line has been silent for quiet_ms → reason quiet
timeout_ms elapses → reason timeout

The quiet timer only starts after the first byte arrives, so a program that takes five seconds to say anything is not cut off at 700 ms. A call that sees no output at all runs to timeout_ms and returns timeout.

With auto_more (default on), a trailing --More-- (Space=yes, Rubout=no) prompt is answered with a space and collection continues, up to 20 pages; the answered prompts are removed from the returned text. Hitting the cap returns reason more_limit, and read continues from there. To flush a pager instead of paging through it, send ~d (rubout).

send and read return only output produced since the last call. peek does not move that cursor.

Output filtering

Raw output carries VT52 escape sequences, NUL padding and occasional telnet IAC bytes. The filter drops NULs, ESC+letter sequences, ESC Y <row> <col> cursor addressing, IAC negotiation (without implementing any telnet stack), and other nonprinting bytes; it keeps text, tabs and newlines. CR, LF and CRLF all become a single \n. Trailing whitespace and runs of blank lines are collapsed in returned text to save tokens; the scrollback keeps the unabridged text.

Typical session

open()
send("~z", expect="Happy hacking|ITS")   # ^Z calls ITS -> DDT banner
send(":login rms")
send(":listf")                           # pages collected automatically
send("foo~ej")                           # f-o-o ESC j CR  (DDT's foo$j)
close()

A detached but logged-in ITS session gets auto-logged-out after about five minutes; ITS itself never times out an idle line, so a held-open session is stable indefinitely.

Tests

uv run pytest                             # offline: filter, escapes, session, tools
PIDP10_LIVE=1 uv run pytest -m live       # acceptance tests on a real emulator
PIDP10_LIVE=1 PIDP10_LIVE_SLOW=1 uv run pytest -m live   # ...including the 3-minute idle test

The offline tests run the whole stack — including the MCP tool layer, via an in-process client — against a fake TCP line, so no emulator is needed.

Live tests are skipped unless PIDP10_LIVE=1; they take the single terminal line for their duration. They honour PIDP10_HOST / PIDP10_PORT, plus PIDP10_USER (default guest) and PIDP10_LISTF_DIR (default sys;, which needs to be a directory big enough to make the pager appear).

The test_three_minute_gap_does_not_drop_the_session case sits idle for 190 seconds on purpose — it is the regression test for the failure that motivated this server — so it needs PIDP10_LIVE_SLOW=1 as well.

Available Tools

6 tools

closeA

Hard-close the line so the emulator frees it for the next connection.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'hard-close', implying forceful termination, and states the consequence (freeing the line). It does not mention side effects like discarding queued data, but for a zero-parameter tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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, short sentence with a clear front-loaded verb ('Hard-close') and no fluff. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It tells what the tool does and why, and the sibling context (open/send/read/peek/status) helps. It could mention any errors or irreversible nature, but the core is covered.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to describe parameters, and nothing about parameters is missing.

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 (hard-close), the target (the line), and the intended outcome (frees it for the next connection). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, especially 'open', by conveying a forceful termination rather than a graceful one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: call this when you are finished with a line and want to release it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus keeping the line open.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

openA

Open the single TCP terminal line to the PDP-10.

Idempotent: if the line is already open this reports status instead of reconnecting. The connection is owned by the server and survives any gap between tool calls. Nothing reconnects automatically -- if the session dies you will be told, and reopening is your explicit decision.

ITS ignores all input on a fresh line until it receives a literal ^Z, so the usual next step is send("~z").

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No	Emulator host; defaults to the configured host.
`port`	No	Emulator TCP port; defaults to the configured port.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses idempotency, server-owned connection that 'survives any gap between tool calls,' no automatic reconnection, session-death notification, and the requirement to send '~z' on a fresh line. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that significantly aids the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise yet information-dense. It leads with a clear purpose, then adds essential behavioral caveats, and finishes with an actionable protocol note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a stateful connection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the connection lifecycle (open, idempotent reopen, server ownership, survival, no auto-reconnect, explicit reconnection), failure reporting ('you will be told'), and the initialization sequence (^Z). This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions ('Emulator host; defaults to the configured host' and similar). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high, and the description need not compensate.

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 specific action: 'Open the single TCP terminal line to the PDP-10.' This uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('single TCP terminal line to the PDP-10'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send, read, peek, status, and close.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: to establish or re-establish the connection. It explains idempotent behavior ('if the line is already open this reports status instead of reconnecting') and the lack of auto-reconnect, guiding the agent to explicitly reopen if the session dies. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling 'status' tool as an alternative when only checking connection state, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

peekA

Re-show recent scrollback without consuming it.

Does not move the read cursor, so send and read still return the same output afterwards. Use this to recover lost context.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`last_n_chars`	No	How much recent scrollback to show.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical behavioral trait of not moving the read cursor, ensuring `send` and `read` return the same output. This goes beyond the schema and gives agents essential safety information.

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 exceptionally concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, its side-effect-free behavior, and when to use it. It could mention return format, but the context is sufficient for 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter's meaning with 'How much recent scrollback to show.' The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-show recent scrollback without consuming it.' It also differentiates from sibling tools like `read` and `send` by explicitly noting that the read cursor does not move, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Use this to recover lost context.' It implicitly contrasts with `read` and `send` by explaining that their output is unaffected, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

readA

Collect further output without sending anything.

For slow programs, or to continue after a more_limit. Same cursor semantics as send: only output not already returned.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expect`	No	Regex; return as soon as it matches the new output.
`quiet_ms`	No	Return once the line has been silent this long.
`auto_more`	No	Answer '--More--' pager prompts with a space and keep collecting.
`timeout_ms`	No	Hard cap on how long to wait.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds important context: it does not send anything, and it only returns output not already returned (same cursor semantics as send). However, it does not explicitly mention that it can auto-answer '--More--' prompts or has timeout/quiet behavior (though these are covered in parameter descriptions). It provides some transparency but could go further in describing the wait/collection behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence conveys meaningful information without redundancy. It is concise and efficiently structured, allowing an agent to quickly grasp the core function and key behavioral nuance.

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 (no output schema, no annotations, but 4 well-documented parameters), the description provides adequate context for use: when to use it, its key behavior (cursor semantics), and that it does not send input. It could optionally explain the return value format, but since the tool collects output and the schema covers parameters, this is sufficient. It is almost as complete as the high-calibration example.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It references 'more_limit' which is a concept from a previous tool, but that does not clarify the parameters themselves. Therefore, no extra value is added by the description.

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 function: 'Collect further output without sending anything.' It uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('output'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send' by explicitly noting it does not send anything. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'For slow programs, or to continue after a `more_limit`.' This tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'peek' or 'status', though the mention of 'same cursor semantics as send' implies a relationship. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

sendA

Send input to ITS and return the output it produced.

A CR (0x0D) is appended automatically -- that is what the line editor wants -- unless input ends with the ~- marker or raw is true. Any literal LF/CRLF in input is normalised to CR, because a bare LF is a DDT command (examine next location) rather than a newline.

Returns only output produced since the previous call, plus a one-word end reason: matched, quiet, timeout, more_limit or dead.

Examples: send("~~z") calls ITS; send("foo~~ej") sends f-o-o ESC j CR, the DDT altmode form usually written foo$j; send(":login rms", expect="@").

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Send the expanded bytes verbatim: no CR appended, no newline normalisation.
`input`	Yes	Text to send. Escapes in `input`: ~z=^Z(0x1A, calls ITS on a fresh line), ~e=ESC/altmode (DDT's $), ~c=^C, ~g=^G, ~d=rubout(0x7F), ~s=^S, ~o=^O, ~r=CR, ~n=LF (a DDT command, not a newline), ~t=tab, ~xNN=hex byte, ~~=literal tilde, trailing ~-=do not append CR.
`expect`	No	Regex; return as soon as it matches the new output.
`quiet_ms`	No	Return once the line has been silent this long. The timer only starts after the first byte arrives.
`auto_more`	No	Answer '--More--' pager prompts with a space and keep collecting, up to 20 pages.
`timeout_ms`	No	Hard cap on how long to wait.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: automatic CR appending, newline normalization to CR, return of only output since the previous call, and the one-word end reason (matched, quiet, timeout, more_limit, dead). It also explains subtle ITS/DDT quirks (bare LF is a DDT command) and provides escape semantics, giving exceptional transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose and then explains essential behavior in a streamlined paragraph. It is dense but every sentence provides unique value (CR behavior, return format, examples). It could be slightly more structured with bullets, but is appropriately concise for a complex tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (output since previous call plus an end reason) and enumerates possible end reasons. It covers all six parameters, escape syntax, and important edge cases (e.g., ~- marker, auto_more paging), making the description complete for correct invocation.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing a strong baseline. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete usage examples (e.g., 'foo~ej' for DDT altmode) and explaining behavioral implications like CR handling and end reasons, which clarify how parameters affect outcomes.

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 first sentence 'Send input to ITS and return the output it produced' uses a specific verb ('send') with a clear resource ('input to ITS') and outcome ('return the output'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read, peek, and status by focusing on the act of sending input.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong contextual guidance through examples such as send("~z") and send(":login rms", expect="@"), making it clear when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use read when you only need output'), so it stops short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

statusB

Connection state, target, uptime, pending output and any death reason.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the information returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it explain the meaning of 'pending output' or 'death reason'. This provides moderate transparency.

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 directly lists the key elements. It has no fluff and is easy to skim, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does enumerate the main returned topics, but it lacks details on data types, format, or how to interpret fields like 'pending output'. For a simple tool, it is mostly adequate, but a touch more context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 enumerates specific status information (connection state, target, uptime, pending output, death reason), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (open, send, read, peek, close) by focusing on status rather than actions, though it lacks an explicit verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read or peek. The description only states what the tool returns, not the scenarios in which it should be invoked or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

6 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026
- First observedclose
- First observedopen
- First observedpeek
- First observedread
- First observedsend
- First observedstatus

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: open manages connection, send transmits input, read collects output, peek previews without consuming, status reports state, and close terminates. No overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are concise single-word verbs (open, send, read, peek, status, close), following a uniform imperative style with no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is ideal for a terminal connection server, covering the full lifecycle without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers connection setup, sending, reading, non-destructive inspection, status checking, and teardown. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of interacting with a PDP-10 terminal line.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

slimaOAuth
io.github.slima-ai
MCP Server for Slima - AI Writing IDE for Novel Authors with AI Beta Reader.
Developer Tools
21
docs-mcp A
ac.tandem
Remote MCP server for Tandem docs, install guides, SDKs, workflows, and agent setup help.
Documentation Access Developer Tools
287
mcp-serverOAuth
com.niftypm
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
Project Management Communication File Systems
2
secureflows-mcp A
io.github.michal-lefler
MCP server for secureFlows: token-free URL builders and integration-linting tools for AI agents.
Code Analysis Developer Tools Security
181

Related MCP Servers

Terminal MCP Server
Shell Access Command Line
weidwonder
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
An MCP server that allows AI models to execute system commands on local machines or remote hosts via SSH, supporting persistent sessions and environment variables.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-17 07:45 UTC)
1
16
28
MIT
mcp-ssh-interactive
Shell Access Command Line
qnxqnxqnx
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that enables AI agents to run fully interactive SSH sessions (via tmux) and execute commands like a human operator, with persistent sessions and multiple concurrent connections.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-05 08:10 UTC)
6
MIT
iterm2-agent
Shell Access Command Line
xjthy001
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for controlling iTerm2 terminal sessions, enabling screen reading, command execution, keystroke sending, and session management through natural language.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-13 03:54 UTC)
1
-
tcpsh-mcp
Networking & Infrastructure Command Line
nchgroup
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for interactive TCP connection management, enabling opening listeners, managing sessions, port forwarding, proxy with logging, and local command execution from any MCP host.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-10 07:17 UTC)
MIT

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/masto/pidp10-mcp'

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

pidp10-mcp

What it does differently

Install

Streamable HTTP

Configuration

Escape syntax

Line endings

Tools

How send and read decide to return

Output filtering

Typical session

Tests

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

How `send` and `read` decide to return