jlink-mcp

by xun123456

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

write_register

Write a value to a CPU register while the target is halted. Specify register name and value to modify execution state.

Instructions

写入指定 CPU 寄存器。目标必须处于暂停状态。

Args: reg_name: 寄存器名，如 "PC"、"R0"、"SP"、"LR"（不区分大小写）。 value: 写入值，十六进制字符串如 "0x08001234" 或十进制字符串如 "1024"。

Returns: 写入结果。

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": {
      "reg_name": "<reg_name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "write_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reg_name`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the halt requirement and basic behavior, but lacks detail on side effects, error conditions, or return value specifics beyond '写入结果'.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary with precondition, then parameter details and return line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant words.

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 tool with 2 parameters and a precondition, the description covers the essential aspects. It mentions return value but not specific format; however, an output schema exists (not shown) which may cover that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It provides concrete examples for reg_name (PC, R0, SP, LR) and value format (hex or decimal strings), adding significant meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 the action ('Write to specified CPU register') and a critical precondition ('Target must be in halted state'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_registers and write_memory.

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 precondition ('target must be halted') provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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