electronic-mcp-server

get_pin_info

Retrieve detailed GPIO pin information for ESP32, Arduino UNO, or STM32 boards, including pin name, alternative functions, and capabilities like PWM and ADC.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific GPIO pin.

Returns pin name, alternative functions, capabilities (PWM, ADC, etc.), and important notes about usage restrictions or recommendations.

Args: board_type: Development board type (ESP32, Arduino UNO, or STM32) pin_number: Physical pin number

Returns: Formatted pin information including functions and notes

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": {
      "board_type": "<board_type>",
      "pin_number": "<pin_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_pin_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board_type`	Yes	Type of development board
`pin_number`	Yes	Pin number to query

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature and the specific information returned (pin name, functions, capabilities, restrictions). It provides clear behavioral context without contradictions.

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 a clear summary, return list, and args section. However, the Args section is redundant with the schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values. With an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains the tool's functionality and context.

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 description adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It repeats 'physical pin number' and 'development board type', offering marginal additional value.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific GPIO pin' and lists the return items (pin name, alternative functions, capabilities, usage restrictions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that find pins or calculate values.

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 for obtaining detailed pin info but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like check_pin_conflict or find_adc_pins, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server