Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coco3

coco3

by dbowlin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

coco_status

Reports whether MAME is running, the bridge answered, and the mounted flop1 image for the CoCo 3 emulator.

Instructions

Report whether MAME is running, whether the bridge answered, and the mounted flop1 image.

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": "coco_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 helpfully enumerates the three things it reports (MAME process, bridge, flop1 mount), but says nothing about whether the call is side-effect free, how it behaves if the bridge is unreachable, or what the return shape 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the reported items with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless status probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the substantive questions (is MAME up, is the bridge alive, what is mounted). The main gap is not hinting at the response format, but the enumerated items largely serve that role.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 (Report) and names exactly what is reported: MAME running state, bridge responsiveness, and the mounted flop1 image. This is clearly distinct from action siblings like coco_start/coco_stop and listing tools like coco_list_images, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight health check before other emulator operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated exclusions.

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