Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flipper-mcp

flipper-mcp

by yairhdz24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

fap_deploy

Build a FAP and deploy it to a Flipper Zero over USB, uploading it to the target category and launching it without requiring a COM port.

Instructions

Build a FAP and deploy it to the Flipper over USB (upload to /ext/apps// and launch it). No COM port required.

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": {
      "appid": "<appid>"
    },
    "name": "fap_deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It covers key actions (build, upload, launch) and the target path, but omits potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), prerequisites, or error cases. It provides useful context but is not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core actions and the key non-requirement (No COM port). Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow but leaves the parameter semantics undefined and lacks details about preconditions or failure modes. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema's sole parameter 'appid' has no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'appid' represents, how it is used in the build/deploy process, or what valid values look like. This is a significant gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's function: it builds a FAP, uploads it to /ext/apps/<category>/, and launches it. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like fap_build (which only builds) and flipper_upload_file (which only uploads).

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 gives some context by mentioning 'No COM port required', implying this tool works without a serial connection. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fap_build or flipper_upload_file, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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