Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
serial-hub-mcp

serial-hub-mcp

by yhuan416
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

连接状态

get_status

Check open state, baud rate, sent/received byte counts, and unread bytes for one or all serial connections; omit the connection ID to list every connection's status.

Instructions

查看指定连接（或多个连接）的打开状态、波特率、收发字节数、剩余未读字节。connection_id 省略则列出全部连接。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connection_idNo连接 ID；省略则返回全部连接状态

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, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it makes clear this is a status query returning several metrics, which implies a read-only operation. It does not state whether reading the unread-byte count consumes or clears data, whether byte counts are cumulative or per-session, or what happens for an invalid connection_id.

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 tight sentences: the returned metrics come first, the optional-parameter behavior second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which substitutes for missing return documentation. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid connection, whether counters reset).

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 single optional parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the omission behavior (list all connections), adding no new format or validity detail beyond that baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (查看) and resource (连接状态) and enumerates exactly what status is exposed: open state, baud rate, TX/RX byte counts, and unread bytes. That field list implicitly separates it from siblings like list_ports or read, but no sibling is named, so differentiation requires inference.

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 only explicit guidance is scoping: omit connection_id to list all connections. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_ports (to discover ports) or read (to consume data), so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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