Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coco3

coco3

by dbowlin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

coco_mount_flop

Mount a disk image to flop1 or flop2 in a Tandy Color Computer 3 MAME session, using paths like storage/disks/game.dsk.

Instructions

Mount a disk image on flop1 or flop2. Prefer paths like storage/disks/game.dsk (resolved from the MCP root). Drives come from manager.machine.images.

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": "coco_mount_flop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDisk image path. Prefer storage/disks/name.dsk (from MCP root) or an absolute path
driveNoDisk drive. Defaults to flop1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits: relative paths are resolved from the MCP root, and valid drives come from manager.machine.images. It does not say what happens if a disk is already mounted in that drive, whether the mount can fail, or what an error looks like.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing sentence about manager.machine.images is slightly cryptic and would benefit from plainer wording.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits mount-state semantics (overwrite/replace behavior, failure modes). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The mention that drives come from manager.machine.images adds a small hint about the drive enum's origin but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (mount) and resource (disk image on flop1/flop2), which cleanly separates it from siblings like coco_unmount_flop and coco_build_disk. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Gives useful path guidance ('Prefer paths like storage/disks/game.dsk') but never says when to use this versus coco_build_disk (create a disk first?) or whether an unmount is needed before remounting. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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