Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esp32-iphone-agent

esp32-iphone-agent

by onehumanbeing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

device_info

Check ESP32 board status—mirroring, frozen video, busy app, USB and BLE link—to diagnose connection or control issues with the iPhone agent.

Instructions

Board status: mirroring (ap), video frozen (fz), app busy (busy), USB, BLE link.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "device_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoboard id; only needed with several boards

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state that this is a safe read operation, whether it blocks, or how values are returned. The parenthetical codes (ap, fz, busy) are ambiguous — it is unclear whether they are status values, modes, or identifiers.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted wording. It is terse rather than padded, though the compression into unexplained tokens hurts clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description should explain what a call returns and what the shorthand codes mean — it does neither. For a status-inspection tool on multi-board hardware, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter `device` is documented in the schema as a board id only needed with several boards. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates status categories (mirroring, video frozen, app busy, USB, BLE link) rather than naming a verb, so the reader must infer this is a read/status-query tool. It is more informative than a restatement of 'device_info', but the purpose is only implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than siblings such as screenshot or history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must guess when a board-status check is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools