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

serial-hub-mcp

by yhuan416
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

发送 BREAK 信号

send_break

Sends a BREAK signal over a serial connection for a set duration, then releases it to wake or reset devices that require BREAK.

Instructions

向串口发送 BREAK 信号并释放（保持 duration_ms 后释放）。常用于唤醒/复位只认 BREAK 的设备。duration_ms 默认 300。

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": {
      "connection_id": "<connection_id>"
    },
    "name": "send_break"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
duration_msNoBREAK 保持时长（毫秒），默认 300
connection_idYes连接 ID（由 open 返回）

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 carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains that the BREAK is held for duration_ms and then released, but it does not state prerequisites such as requiring an open connection, error behavior, or whether the operation has side effects beyond waking/resetting a device.

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 short and front-loads the core action and release behavior. The final sentence repeats the default value already present in the schema, which is a minor redundancy rather than a structural problem.

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 two-parameter serial operation with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and primary use case. It could be more complete by mentioning the open-connection prerequisite or expected failure behavior, but those gaps are modest.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the duration_ms default of 300 but adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not describe connection_id semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send a BREAK signal to the serial port and release it. It is clearly distinct from generic write/read siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when to prefer another operation, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It provides clear usage context: commonly used to wake or reset devices that only recognize BREAK. It does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives, so it is not fully specified at level 5.

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