openbci-mcp

by sandraschi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of OpenBCI operation: board management, streaming, signal analysis, export, triggers, help, and high-level workflow orchestration. No two tools have overlapping primary purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow the pattern 'openbci_<function>', all lowercase with underscores. However, 'agentic_openbci_workflow' deviates with the prefix 'agentic', and 'openbci_help' is a noun instead of a verb, slightly breaking consistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers the essential functions for BCI data acquisition and processing without being bloated. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow (connect, stream, analyze, export, trigger) is fully covered. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking advanced signal processing (e.g., artifact removal, epoch extraction) and hardware configuration details, but the set is sufficient for typical use cases.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists operations but does not mention side effects (e.g., remove_rule is destructive), persistence of rules, authorization needs, error conditions, or rate limits. The default target hint is helpful but insufficient for a multi-operation tool.
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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, a bullet list of operations, and a concluding sentence on default target. It is front-loaded and concise, though the bullet list could be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters, 7 operations, and no output schema, the description lacks detail on operation flows, relationship between operations (e.g., how rules are evaluated), expected outputs, and error handling. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual overview (e.g., default target) but does not clarify which parameters apply to each operation (e.g., add_rule requires band, channel, operator, threshold). Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'OSC triggers for BCI neurofeedback and osc-mcp downstream apps' and lists specific operations, effectively conveying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openbci_signal or openbci_stream, though context implies a focus on OSC triggering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use scenarios. Siblings like openbci_board or openbci_signal exist but are not compared, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as blocking nature, connection limits, or side effects of operations like disconnect, which is insufficient for a hardware management tool.
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 very concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bulleted list of operations, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits crucial details about return values, error handling, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing operations; it does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages OpenBCI hardware connections via BrainFlow and lists specific operations (connect, disconnect, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like openbci_signal or openbci_stream which handle other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through listed operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., openbci_stream for streaming data), lacking exclusions or contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes operations but omits side effects (e.g., file overwrites, network multicast behavior), permissions needed, or error states (e.g., invalid streamer params). The lack of detail on what 'route' entails (does it start/stop streams? is it persistent?) reduces 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?
Well-structured with a header, bulleted operations, and examples. Every sentence adds value: the header states purpose, operations list modes, examples clarify syntax. No fluff or redundancy. Efficiently communicates necessary info in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers operations and gives examples but lacks info on return values, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., board must be streaming), and lifecycle (e.g., does streamer_add start immediately?). Agent may need to infer details from sibling tools like openbci_board.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining each operation's role and providing BrainFlow streamer syntax examples for streamer_params. It contextualizes ip_address and ip_port for multicast, and file_path for file export, enriching the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Route live EEG to external consumers via BrainFlow streamers', specifying the verb (route/export) and resource (EEG stream). Lists three distinct operations (streamer_add, streamer_file, streamer_multicast), differentiating from sibling tools like openbci_board or openbci_signal which handle other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. While operations are described, there's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives (e.g., using openbci_stream instead), or when not to use. The description assumes the agent already knows to choose export for streaming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is straightforward and indicates a read-only help operation. It does not mention any side effects or constraints, but for a help tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.
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 very concise, using a brief introduction and three bullet points. It is well-structured and to the point, with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple help tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the available operations and their high-level content. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning that the output is text or a list of information.
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 provides enum descriptions for the 'operation' parameter, and the description adds context by briefly explaining each operation's content (e.g., 'Tool catalog and board keys' for overview). This adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Discovery and usage guide' for openbci-mcp and lists three specific operations (overview, quickstart, ports). This provides a clear purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual operations. However, it could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like openbci_board or openbci_stream. It is implied that this is for help and documentation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'real-time' and 'from latest buffer' for band_power, but doesn't clarify if filter modifies data in place or returns filtered output, nor does it specify return format. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two succinct sentences with bullet points for operations. Front-loaded with overall purpose, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description omits what the tool returns (e.g., computed powers or filtered signals). It assumes board is already streaming but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites. Adequate for a tool with 6 parameters but incomplete on returns.
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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra: it summarizes operations and mentions 60Hz notch, but schema already enumerates filter types and parameters with descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Real-time EEG signal analysis via BrainFlow DataFilter' and enumerates two specific operations (band_power, filter). Distinguishes from sibling tools (board, stream, export, etc.) which handle different aspects of OpenBCI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Implicitly, it's for signal processing, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that snapshot requires active stream and that stop leaves the session connected. However, it does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., data loss when restarting). This is adequate but incomplete for full 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 concise with a heading and bulleted list of operations. Each operation is described in one line. The structure is clear and front-loaded, but the 'marker' description uses an internal jargon ('P300/speller') that may require external knowledge.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers operations but lacks return value details for start/stop/marker (e.g., confirmation or error messages). Snapshot mentions 'latest EEG samples per channel' but no format. This is sufficient for basic use but could be more complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'marker' parameter to 'marker operation' and mentioning 'buffer_size' and 'max_samples' relate to start and snapshot respectively. However, it does not significantly enrich the schema definitions, such as clarifying default values or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: 'Control EEG data streaming from a connected OpenBCI board.' It lists four distinct operations (start, stop, snapshot, marker) with specific behaviors, distinguishing it from siblings like openbci_board (board management) and openbci_export (data export).
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 context for when to use each operation (e.g., 'marker' is for 'P300/speller experiments', 'snapshot' requires active stream, 'stop' keeps session connected). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare directly to sibling tools, but the structure implies clear usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It mentions internal mechanism (FastMCP sampling) and exposes max_iterations and available_tools, but does not disclose safety, authentication, or failure 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 very concise: two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.
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?
For a complex orchestrator with no output schema, the description lacks details on return value, error handling, and edge cases. It covers the high-level purpose but is incomplete for an agent to fully understand its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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 it's a multi-step workflow orchestrator via FastMCP sampling, with an example that distinguishes it from sibling individual tools like openbci_board or openbci_stream.
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 example implicitly shows when to use it (for multi-step tasks), but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. The sibling relationship helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/sandraschi/openbci-mcp'

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