Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coco3

coco3

by dbowlin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

coco_write_memory

Write space-separated hex bytes to a specified address in the current 64K MMU window, not physical RAM, to modify emulated CoCo 3 memory.

Instructions

Write bytes into the current 64K MMU window, not physical RAM.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "coco_write_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesSpace-separated hex bytes
addressYesHex address in the current 64K MMU window

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely important behavioral trait — that writes land in the MMU-mapped window rather than physical RAM — but says nothing about what happens on unmapped addresses, whether the write can corrupt emulator state, or any error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint is stated immediately after the action rather than buried.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic (MMU vs physical RAM) but omits failure modes and any note on how the hex data string maps to addresses. 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% (both parameters documented, including 'space-separated hex bytes' and 'hex address in the current 64K MMU window'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('write bytes') and adds a precise scope caveat ('current 64K MMU window, not physical RAM') that clearly separates it from physical-memory writes. It doesn't explicitly name the counterpart sibling coco_read_memory, but the write/read pairing 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mutation counterpart to coco_read_memory and that it targets emulated MMU space rather than host state.

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