How do I use embedded-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@embedded-mcp Read serial output from COM5 for 5 seconds" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

embedded-mcp

by atillab1

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

embedded-mcp

Let an AI assistant read, command, and debug your microcontroller — over plain serial.

License: MIT Python 3.10+ MCP

embedded-mcp is a Model Context Protocol server. It gives an MCP-capable client (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, …) a small set of tools to talk to a real board over a serial port.

When you debug firmware, your AI pair can now see what the board prints and poke it back — instead of you copy-pasting the serial monitor by hand.

┌─────────────┐      MCP (stdio)      ┌───────────────┐     UART / USB-serial    ┌──────────────┐
│  AI client  │  ◄────────────────►   │  embedded-mcp │  ◄────────────────────►  │  your board  │
│  (Claude)   │                       │   (this repo) │       (pyserial)         │  STM32 / ...  │
└─────────────┘                       └───────────────┘                          └──────────────┘

Why

Embedded debugging is a loop of flash → watch the serial monitor → send a command → read the dump → decode a register against the datasheet. That loop is exactly the kind of tedious, context-heavy work an AI is good at — if you give it eyes and hands on the hardware. This server is those eyes and hands.

Related MCP server: Serial MCP Server

Tools

Tool	What it does
`list_serial_ports`	Discover available ports (COM5, /dev/ttyACM0, …).
`read_serial`	Passively read what the firmware is printing for N seconds.
`send_command`	Send a line to the device's UART shell and capture the reply.
`decode_register`	Turn a raw value (e.g. `0x4002`) into named bit-fields.
`decode_register_svd`	Decode a register by name straight from a vendor CMSIS-SVD file.
`list_flashers`	Report which flashers are installed (st-flash / probe-rs / openocd).
`flash_firmware`	Flash a firmware image to the board (dry-run by default).

Install

git clone https://github.com/atillab1/embedded-mcp.git
cd embedded-mcp
pip install -e .

Use with Claude Desktop

Add this to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "embedded-mcp": {
      "command": "embedded-mcp"
    }
  }
}

Restart Claude Desktop. Then just ask:

"List my serial ports, then read whatever COM5 is printing at 115200 for 5 seconds."

"Send status to the board on COM5 and tell me what it replies."

"Register RCC->CR read back as 0x4002. Decode it: bit 0 is HSION, bit 17 is HSEON, bit 25 is PLLRDY."

Example: decode a register

decode_register(value=0x4002, fields=[{"name":"HSION","bit":0},{"name":"HSEON","bit":17}], width=32)

{
  "value": 16386,
  "hex": "0x00004002",
  "binary": "00000000000000000100000000000010",
  "fields": [
    { "name": "HSION", "bits": "[0]",  "value": 0 },
    { "name": "HSEON", "bits": "[17]", "value": 0 }
  ]
}

Try it now (no hardware needed)

The register decoders work entirely offline — give them a quick spin:

python examples/demo.py

Flashing

flash_firmware shells out to a real flasher and is dry-run by default — it returns the exact command it would run, so you can review it before anything touches your board:

"Dry-run flashing build/app.bin to my STM32 with st-flash."

Flip dry_run=False to actually flash. Supported: st-flash (.bin), probe-rs (.elf, needs chip), openocd (.elf, needs openocd_target).

Safety notes

Tools open the port only for the duration of the call, then close it — they do not hold the port, so your normal IDE serial monitor can share it (one at a time).
Read durations are capped at 30s so a call can never hang the client.
flash_firmware is destructive; it defaults to a dry run and never flashes unless you explicitly pass dry_run=False.
This talks to whatever board is on the port. Don't point it at something you don't own.

Roadmap

Unit tests + GitHub Actions CI
Load a register map from an SVD file (decode_register_svd)
Flashing hook (flash_firmware via st-flash / probe-rs / openocd)
Streaming/continuous monitor (notifications instead of fixed windows)
SVD auto-discovery from the connected chip id

Contributions welcome — open an issue or PR.

Development

pip install -e .
pip install pytest
pytest -q

License

MIT © Atilla — see LICENSE.

Available Tools

7 tools

decode_registerA

Decode a raw register value into its named bit-fields.

A constant pain in embedded work: you read a register as 0x4002 and have to mentally line it up against the datasheet bit map. This does it for you.

Args: value: The raw register value (e.g. 0x4002). fields: A list of field descriptors. Each is either: {"name": "EN", "bit": 0} -> single bit {"name": "PRESC", "msb": 5, "lsb": 2} -> bit range [msb:lsb] width: Register width in bits (8, 16, 32...). Used only for display.

Returns the binary view plus each field's extracted value.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes
`width`	No
`fields`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns 'binary view plus each field's extracted value' but does not cover error handling or limitations like field overlaps.

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 efficient: front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear example and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Fairly complete for a decoding tool: explains input, structure of fields, output. However, lacks error handling details or constraints on field definitions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaning by explaining value is raw register, fields structure (single bit vs bit range), and width for display only.

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 decodes a raw register value into named bit-fields, using a concrete example (0x4002). It distinguishes from the sibling 'decode_register_svd' by implying SVD-based decoding is different.

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 description explains when to use it (when you have a raw register value). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list suggests an alternative for SVD-based decoding.

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

decode_register_svdA

Decode a register by name using a CMSIS-SVD chip description file.

Instead of typing out the bit map by hand (as decode_register needs), point this at the vendor's .svd file and name the peripheral + register. It reads the real bit-fields from the SVD and decodes your value against them.

Example: decode_register_svd(0x4002, "STM32F407.svd", "RCC", "CR")

Args: value: The raw register value you read back. svd_path: Path to a CMSIS-SVD file on this machine. peripheral: Peripheral name as in the SVD, e.g. "RCC". register: Register name as in the SVD, e.g. "CR". width: Register width in bits for display (default 32).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes
`width`	No
`register`	Yes
`svd_path`	Yes
`peripheral`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a file ('reads the real bit-fields from the SVD'), implying read-only file access. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found, invalid SVD) or other behavioral traits like output format or potential side effects. The description is adequate but 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 concise and well-structured: a high-level purpose sentence, a comparison to a sibling tool for context, a concrete example, and a clear 'Args' listing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (distinction from `decode_register`) is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters (4 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the return value format, but since an output schema exists, that is acceptable. The only minor gap is the lack of details about error scenarios or file access requirements, but overall it is complete for typical usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' block: `value` as raw register value, `svd_path` as file path, `peripheral` and `register` as names, and `width` with default 32. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles. A brief example further clarifies usage.

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 decodes a register value using a CMSIS-SVD file by name, contrasting with the sibling tool `decode_register` that requires manual bit map input. The verb 'decode' and specific resource (register via SVD) are explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like `flash_firmware` or `list_serial_ports`.

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 description explicitly advises use when an SVD file is available, saying 'Instead of typing out the bit map by hand (as `decode_register` needs)'. It provides an example and lists arguments, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites like file existence. The guidance is clear for the primary use case.

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

flash_firmwareA

Flash a firmware image onto the connected board.

DESTRUCTIVE: this overwrites the flash of whatever board is connected. For safety it defaults to dry_run=True, which only returns the exact command it would run without executing it. Set dry_run=False to actually flash.

Args: firmware_path: Path to the firmware (.bin for st-flash; .elf for probe-rs/openocd). tool: "auto" (pick the first installed) or "st-flash" / "probe-rs" / "openocd". address: Flash address for st-flash (default STM32 0x08000000). chip: Chip name for probe-rs, e.g. "STM32F407VG". openocd_target: OpenOCD target cfg, e.g. "target/stm32f4x.cfg". dry_run: If True (default), return the command instead of running it. timeout_seconds: Max time to wait when actually flashing (capped at 600s).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chip`	No
`tool`	No	auto
`address`	No	0x08000000
`dry_run`	No
`firmware_path`	Yes
`openocd_target`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: overwriting flash, destructive nature, dry_run behavior, timeout capping at 600s. This gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects and execution control.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and a prominent DESTRUCTIVE warning, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive behavior, multiple flashing tools) and absence of annotations or output schema details in the description, it fully covers all necessary context. The presence of an output schema elsewhere covers return value information.

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 carries full burden. It adds a bullet list explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and allowed formats (e.g., .bin vs .elf), which goes well beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 'Flash a firmware image onto the connected board,' using a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools are debug, register, and serial tools, so this tool's unique flashing purpose is well-distinguished.

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 description explicitly warns of destructiveness and explains the dry_run safety default. It provides clear context for when to use the tool (flashing firmware) but does not directly compare to siblings; however, siblings are distinct enough that no explicit comparisons are necessary.

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

list_flashersA

Report which firmware-flashing tools are installed on this machine.

Call this before flash_firmware to see what's available (st-flash, probe-rs, openocd).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes a read-only inspection tool with no side effects. Could mention if any installation detection is invasive, but likely not needed.

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 plus a parenthetical list; no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and a simple list operation, the description fully covers purpose and usage. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining the output (list of installed tools), which is beyond the empty schema.

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 reports which firmware-flashing tools are installed, with a specific verb 'report' and resource 'installed tools on this machine'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like flash_firmware by being a prerequisite check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to call this before flash_firmware, giving direct when-to-use guidance. It also lists example tools (st-flash, probe-rs, openocd) to set expectations.

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

list_serial_portsA

List the serial ports currently available on this machine.

Use this first to find out which port your board is on (e.g. "COM5" on Windows, "/dev/ttyACM0" on Linux). The other tools all take a port.

Returns one entry per port with its device name and a human description.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns one entry per port with device name and human description, implying a read-only, safe operation. No mention of side effects or permissions, but the simple nature of the tool makes this sufficient.

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—just two sentences and an example line. It front-loads the main action and immediately provides actionable information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the lack of parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown, but mentioned), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its return format. It could mention whether the list is static or can change between calls, but this is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the output fields (device name and description), which is helpful despite no parameters.

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: 'List the serial ports currently available on this machine.' It provides concrete examples of output (e.g., 'COM5' on Windows) and explains its role as a prerequisite for other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like flash_firmware or read_serial.

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 description explicitly advises using this tool first to discover the port, and notes that other tools take a `port` parameter. This provides clear context, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if port is already known).

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

read_serialA

Read whatever the device prints on port for seconds, then return it.

This opens the port, listens passively, and gives back everything it saw. Great for "what is my firmware logging right now?".

Args: port: Serial port name, e.g. "COM5" or "/dev/ttyACM0". baudrate: Bits per second. Must match your firmware (default 115200). seconds: How long to listen. Capped at 30s.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	Yes
`seconds`	No
`baudrate`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

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 key behaviors: opens the port, listens passively, returns all output, and caps listening at 30s. It does not cover potential errors or device requirements, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value ('everything it saw'). It lacks details on error conditions or device setup, but the presence of an output schema compensates. Sibling tools are available but not referenced.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents all three parameters. It provides examples (port), units and default (baudrate), and constraints (seconds capped at 30s). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it reads serial output for a specified duration. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('device prints on port'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_command' (sending) and 'list_serial_ports' (listing).

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 description provides a concrete use case ('what is my firmware logging right now?') and implies read-only passive listening. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides some context.

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

send_commandA

Send command to the device and capture its reply.

Writes the command (plus a line ending) to the port, then listens for the response for reply_seconds. Use this to drive a firmware's command shell (CLI over UART) — e.g. send "status" and read what comes back.

Args: port: Serial port name. command: The text to send (line ending added automatically). baudrate: Bits per second (default 115200). reply_seconds: How long to wait for the reply. Capped at 30s. line_ending: Appended to the command. "\n", "\r\n" or "" .

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	Yes
`command`	Yes
`baudrate`	No
`line_ending`	No
`reply_seconds`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: writes command with line ending, listens for response for reply_seconds (capped at 30s). It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty reply, but gives sufficient transparency for typical use.

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?

Highly concise: first sentence summarizes purpose, then a short paragraph adds context, followed by a clean Args list. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: tool action, parameters, usage context, and behavioral constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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. The Args section explains each parameter: port, command, baudrate (default 115200), reply_seconds (capped at 30s), line_ending (appended automatically). Adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Send `command` to the device and capture its reply.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'read_serial' which only reads.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to drive a firmware's command shell (CLI over UART) — e.g. send "status" and read what comes back.' Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context signals and sibling names (e.g., read_serial, flash_firmware) help.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

7 tool updatesv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026
- First observeddecode_register
- First observeddecode_register_svd
- First observedflash_firmware
- First observedlist_flashers
- First observedlist_serial_ports
- First observedread_serial
- First observedsend_command

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Register decoding splits into two tools for different input methods (manual vs SVD), but they are unambiguous in their usage. Other tools cover flashing, serial interaction, and listing, with no overlapping functionalities.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., decode_register, list_flashers). No mix of styles or vague verbs, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for embedded development workflows. It covers register decoding, firmware flashing, flasher detection, serial port listing, and serial communication without being overly numerous or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core embedded tasks (register decoding, flashing, serial interaction) but misses a few common operations like direct memory read/write or chip reset. These gaps are minor and the surface is largely complete for typical debugging.

Maintenance

ActivityStale

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

sncro A
io.github.scottconfusedgorilla
Live browser debugging for AI assistants — DOM, console, network via MCP.
Browser Automation Developer Tools Monitoring
2
mcp
com.skopik
Your org's AI agents, tasks, runs, search, and brain files as MCP tools and resources.
Agent Orchestration Knowledge & Memory Search
2
ZapierOAuth
com.zapier
Hosted MCP server connecting AI assistants to 9,000+ apps and 40,000+ actions via Zapier.
App Automation Workplace & Productivity
2297
Frenchie A
io.github.Lab94
OCR, transcription, file extraction, and image generation for AI agents via MCP.
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing Speech Processing
72

Related MCP Servers

UART MCP Server
Embedded system Command Line App Automation
donnel666
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to communicate with serial port devices, supporting port management, data transmission in text/binary modes, interactive terminal sessions, and automatic reconnection.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-18 08:18 UTC)
14
12
MIT
Serial MCP Server
Embedded system Command Line OS Automation
ifindv
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables LLMs to communicate with hardware devices via serial ports. Provides tools for listing ports, opening/closing connections, reading/writing data, and controlling serial signals.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-27 10:39 UTC)
8
MIT
mcp-uart
Embedded system
SamyiHu
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to communicate with UART/serial devices, offering tools for port management, data read/write, and protocol handling.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-11 03:20 UTC)
MIT
mcp-serial-bridge
Embedded system
46nori
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to control serial port devices (modems, instruments, embedded boards) via MCP tools for listing ports, connecting, and sending/receiving commands.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-14 12:37 UTC)
3
1
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/atillab1/embedded-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server