flipper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flipper_subghz_tx_file

Transmit a saved Sub-GHz capture from the Flipper Zero SD card over actual RF. Use for replaying recorded signals only on frequencies you are authorized to transmit on.

Instructions

Transmit a saved Sub-GHz capture (.sub file on the SD card). WARNING: transmits on real RF — only use legal frequencies you are authorized to transmit on.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "flipper_subghz_tx_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`repeat`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: transmitting on real RF with a legal warning. However, it does not describe repeat behavior, blocking vs async operation, or error outcomes, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second is a warning. Every word earns its place; it is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter explanation, the description leaves questions about repeat behavior and operational side effects. The legal warning is present, but the tool's full behavior is not sufficiently specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at path via 'saved Sub-GHz capture (.sub file on SD card)', but does not explain the path argument format or the repeat parameter's meaning. This fails to compensate for the low 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 'Transmit a saved Sub-GHz capture (.sub file on the SD card)', using a specific verb (transmit) and resource (a .sub file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flipper_subghz_rx (receive) and flipper_ir_send (IR).

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 transmitting saved captures but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like flipper_subghz_rx. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references; the only additional guidance is the legal-frequency warning, which is more about authorization than tool selection.

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