Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcu-debug-mcp

mcu-debug-mcp

by stillsurge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

driver_get

Fetch a named driver's pre-validated package with wiring table, full code, and validation records. Only the *_port.h header needs adaptation for hardware integration.

Instructions

输出指定驱动的接线表+完整代码+验证记录。name 来自 driver_list。 这些代码是预验证过的，直接交付用户；需要适配的只有 *_port.h。

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "driver_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does add genuine behavioral context: the code is pre-validated and deliverable as-is, and only *_port.h needs adaptation. But it omits any side-effect/safety profile and does not clarify whether this is purely a read/lookup operation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output description and followed by the source of the parameter and a delivery caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained; the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and the key adaptation caveat. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the sibling-selection question left open.

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 0% and the single name parameter has no description in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating the name originates from driver_list, giving provenance, but adds no format or matching-rule detail.

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?

States a specific verb (输出/output) and resource (指定驱动) plus the concrete return payload: wiring table, complete code, and verification records. This distinguishes it from driver_list (enumeration) and driver_wiring (wiring only), though the overlap with driver_wiring is not explicitly resolved.

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?

"name 来自 driver_list" implies a required lookup step before calling, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states when to choose driver_get versus driver_wiring or driver_list, so usage is only implied rather than contrasted.

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