Skip to main content
Glama
unicorn2439614256

XR875 Build MCP

by unicorn2439614256
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

build_all

Execute sequential builds for XR875 SDK projects, compiling M33 and C906 cores, creating OTA updates, and packaging firmware in a single command.

Instructions

Build everything in sequence (M33 -> OTA -> C906 -> Pack).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/xr875_build/server.py:51-58 (handler)
    The build_all tool is registered with @mcp.tool() and executes a sequence of build commands using run_build_command helper function.
    @mcp.tool()
def build_all():
    """Build everything in sequence (M33 -> OTA -> C906 -> Pack)."""
    # Note: Using M33 followed by OTA then C906 and Pack as a standard procedure
    cmd = ("source tools/scripts/envsetup.sh && lunch_rtos 34 && lunch_rtos 35 && m clean && m && "
           "ota_mrtos clean && ota_mrtos && "
           "lunch_rtos 34 && m clean && m && pack")
    return run_build_command(cmd)

Tool Definition Quality

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sequence of operations but lacks details on what 'Build' entails (e.g., compilation, linking, error handling), whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Build everything') and follows with the sequence details. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate by stating the action and sequence. However, for a build tool that likely involves complex operations, it lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or dependencies, leaving room for improvement in completeness despite the simple context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the build sequence (M33 → OTA → C906 → Pack), which provides context beyond the empty schema, though it doesn't detail parameters since none exist.

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 the action ('Build everything') and specifies the sequence of operations (M33 → OTA → C906 → Pack), which indicates a multi-step build process. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like build_c906 or build_m33, but the 'everything' scope implies it's comprehensive rather than targeting individual components.

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 when a full sequential build is needed, as opposed to using individual sibling tools for specific components. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions, leaving the context somewhat inferred rather than clearly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/unicorn2439614256/xr875-build-mcp'

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