Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SensorForge MCP Server

SensorForge MCP Server

by sidupreti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check fit on a chip

check_fit

Determines whether a model runs on specified chips and reports measured SRAM and flash usage against each chip's budget, so you can confirm device fit before lossless or optimization.

Instructions

Check whether a model runs on one or more chips and how much SRAM and flash it needs there, measured. Takes seconds; no data needed. Returns a per-chip verdict with SRAM and flash against each chip's budget, and the SRAM lossless would reach. Use it first, before lossless or optimize.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model_path": "<model_path>"
    },
    "name": "check_fit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chipsNoChip names from list_chips (a list, or comma separated). Each chip is one run. Default: cortex-m-cmsis, a generic Arm Cortex-M.
model_pathYesThe model: a .tflite or .onnx file, or a .zip of a firmware export. Relative to the working directory, or starting with ~.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds useful behavior the annotations cannot: runtime cost ('takes seconds'), no input data prerequisite, and what the result contains. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for what reads as a measurement operation, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then cost/prerequisites, then return shape and workflow position. No sentence is redundant with another.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by summarizing the return value (per-chip verdict with SRAM and flash against budget, plus attainable lossless SRAM). With only two fully documented parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including the default cortex-m-cmsis chip and the accepted model file types. The description only restates the cardinality ('one or more chips'); it adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and object ('Check whether a model runs on one or more chips') plus the measured outputs ('how much SRAM and flash it needs there, measured'). That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools lossless and optimize, which the description explicitly names.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit ordering guidance: 'Use it first, before lossless or optimize.' It also removes a common hesitation by stating 'no data needed' and 'Takes seconds', so an agent knows the cost of calling it and that it is the entry point of the workflow.

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