mcp-pine

by dmang-dev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ping for connectivity, get_info/get_status for metadata, read/write tools differentiated by data width and alignment, save/load state for snapshotting, and read_range for bulk reads. No two tools overlap in what they do.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent pine_verb_noun pattern (e.g., pine_read8, pine_write32, pine_save_state, pine_get_info). The naming is predictable and immediately conveys the tool's action and operand size or target.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well-scoped for a PS2 emulator memory debugger. It covers connection, memory reads/writes at multiple widths, bulk reads, save states, and metadata—all essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core read/write, save/load, and metadata operations comprehensively. Minor gaps exist: no bulk write tool (only loop-based), no pause/resume (unavailable via PINE), and no reset. Still, the surface is sufficiently complete for the intended domain.
Average 4.8/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 4.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 44 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 18, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive behavior (silently overwrites target slot), environment constraints (bound to game disc and PCSX2 version), timing behavior (returns when save scheduled, not when on disk), and error conditions. This is comprehensive but could mention performance implications.
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 uses clear headings (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and is well-structured. However, it is somewhat verbose for a simple tool, with some redundancy and unnecessary detail about paths that could be streamlined.
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 no output schema, the description includes return value format and error conditions. It covers the half-written window and dependencies. For a state-saving tool, it is sufficiently complete, though it lacks details about async execution or cancellation.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (slot) with a detailed description including range, protocol, and path info. The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond restating the slot-based nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Trigger the emulator to save complete state (RAM, registers, GPU, audio, timing) to a numbered slot.' It specifies the verb, resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like pine_load_state. The slot-based nature is explicitly highlighted.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Rollback point before risky writes, bookmarks, repro sharing' and mentions the companion tool pine_load_state. It gives clear context but does not fully list when not to use it beyond implying alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It extensively discloses destructive behavior, what gets replaced, crash risks from incompatible states, asynchronous nature, and return value. This is comprehensive and honest.
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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.
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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, return value, errors, and caveats, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The file naming detail is marginal extra context, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.
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 purpose: 'Trigger the emulator to load a previously-saved state from the given numbered savestate slot, replacing all live state.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like pine_save_state.
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?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios: 'undo a sequence of writes/inputs..., jump to a bookmarked game state, or start each tool-call sequence from a known baseline.' It also notes when not to use (no reset opcode) and mentions alternatives like GUI.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses no side effects, explains internal synthesis from individual read calls, describes default serial execution due to PCSX2 queue limits, and lists error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.
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?
Description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, memory map, RETURNS). While verbose, each section adds necessary context and no content is redundant. Could be slightly more concise but retains readability.
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 (synthesized reads, serial behavior, PS2 memory), the description is exceptionally complete. It includes memory map landmarks, return format, error conditions, and best practices. Without an output schema, it fully describes the output.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds significant value: for 'address' explains alignment strategy, for 'length' gives latency proportionality and chunking advice. Both parameters are well documented beyond schema basics.
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 reads a contiguous byte range from EE memory as a hex dump, distinguishing it from sibling tools (pine_read8/16/32/64) by emphasizing bulk reads cheaper for >4 bytes.
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 usage guidance: 'For >4 bytes — far cheaper than looping pine_read8,' and advises chunking reads larger than 4096 bytes. Includes context for snapshot-diff RAM hunts and mentions overriding pipeline batching at own risk. Implicitly suggests limiting to reads ≤4 bytes suggests alternatives, but does not explicitly list sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: no side effects, connection details (Unix socket or TCP with fallback), timeout (10 seconds), and return format. This meets the burden of transparency completely.
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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, making it concise yet informative.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage timing, behavioral details, and return value. It is fully self-contained and complete for an agent to use.
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?
There are no parameters (input schema is empty with 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter info, but for a parameterless tool, it provides sufficient context about what the tool does, exceeding expectations.
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 'Verify the PINE server (PCSX2) is reachable and responding,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pine_read16 or pine_write16, which are for data access, by being the liveness probe.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Call once at session start before other tool calls,' giving clear usage context. It also notes that it doubles as an emulator-version sniffer. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the tool is narrow in scope, so this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: no side effects (pure read), alignment requirement (8-byte), unaligned corruption behavior, timeout (~10s), error on unmapped addresses, and return format (decimal string with hex).
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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, memory map, RETURNS). It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, covering alignment, siblings, and return format. Could be trimmed marginally but is effective.
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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (single line with hex address, decimal value, hex value) and precision note (decimal string to avoid JavaScript number limits). It also includes a memory map for context. The tool has only one parameter and is well-covered.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains alignment requirement (must be 8-byte aligned and what happens if not), provides useful address range landmarks, and clarifies that unmapped addresses return a PINE FAIL response. The schema already describes the parameter, so 4 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool reads an unsigned 64-bit little-endian value from the EE main address space, with a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('unsigned 64-bit little-endian value'). It distinguishes from siblings like pine_read8/16/32 and pine_read_range by specifying bit-width and atomicity.
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?
The description gives explicit guidance: use for true 64-bit fields (full pointers, large IDs) and when atomicity is needed (rather than chaining two pine_read32). It also advises against unaligned reads, directing to pine_read_range instead. Alternatives (siblings) are named for 8/16/32-bit reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: 'No side effects — pure read', 'Reads work whether the emulator is running or paused', 'No alignment requirement', and error conditions (unmapped address, connection drop, FAIL response, timeout). This exceeds the minimal expectation.
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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and a reference list of address landmarks. It is front-loaded with critical information. While the address list is verbose, it is contextually useful and does not detract from conciseness overall.
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?
Despite the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, return format, error handling, and timeout. It provides a complete mental model for the agent to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with a good parameter description. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by indicating the typical useful range (0x00100000-0x01FFFFFF for EE RAM) and clarifying that hex literals are accepted and that invalid addresses return FAIL. This enriches the parameter semantics.
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 explicitly states the purpose: 'Read an unsigned 8-bit byte from the emulator's EE main address space at the given absolute address.' It clearly indicates the resource (EE main address space) and action (read byte). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 8-bit vs 16/32/64 and range tools.
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?
The 'USAGE' section provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (single-byte fields) and when to use alternatives (pine_read16/32/64 for larger types, pine_read_range for spans >4 bytes). This directly addresses tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states DESTRUCTIVE behavior (no undo), direct write bypassing TLB, silent drops on read-only regions, 2-byte alignment requirement, and unaligned access corruption risks. Also covers error conditions.
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?
Well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, landmarks, RETURNS). However, alignment warnings appear both in main description and param descriptions, adding minor redundancy. Still fairly concise for the complexity.
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?
Covers all necessary context for a memory-write tool on PS2: address landmarks, alignment, endianness, destructive nature, and return format. No output schema but return line is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value: explains LSB/MSB placement, signed encoding via two's complement, and reinforces alignment. Slight redundancy with schema but overall adds context.
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 explicitly states the tool writes an unsigned 16-bit little-endian value to the EE main address space. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing pine_write8, pine_write32, and pine_write64, and addresses big-endian handling.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use (16-bit pokes) and when-not-to (single bytes, larger, big-endian) with named alternatives. Also recommends snapshotting via pine_save_state for rollback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: destructive overwrite, silent drop on read-only regions, immediate effect but only visible after emulator tick, no alignment requirement, and error conditions. This fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.
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 well-structured with clear section headers (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and uses bullet points for address ranges. It is moderately long but each sentence earns its place, though the address list could be slightly trimmed.
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 complexity of PS2 memory model and lack of output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage guidelines with alternatives, detailed behavior, parameter semantics, error conditions, and even the return format. It is fully self-contained.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing PS2 memory landmarks for the address parameter and explicit range for value, enhancing 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 opens with a clear 'PURPOSE' section stating exactly what the tool does: write a single unsigned byte to the emulator's EE main address space. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning write16/write32/write64 for larger values.
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?
The USAGE section provides concrete scenarios (single-byte cheats, debug pokes) and explicitly states when to use alternatives (write16/32/64 for larger values). It also advises on bulk writes (loop or batch via write64) and rollback (save_state/load_state), giving clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes behavior in detail: no side effects, pure read, issues five opcodes in parallel, returns '(unavailable)' for failed fields, propagates error on connection failure. Annotations absent so description carries full burden.
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?
Well-structured with PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Efficient despite length.
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?
Complete for a no-parameter tool without output schema. Explains return format (multi-line text with fields), parallel opcode behavior, error handling, and field failure behavior.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, baseline is 4. Description adds meaning about returned fields but no parameter details needed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets loaded game metadata and run state, with specific fields listed: title, serial code, disc CRC, game version. It distinguishes from siblings like pine_get_status which only gets run state.
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 after pine_ping, warns against blind memory poking, and directs to pine_get_status for just run state. Provides contextual usage: serial identifies region, CRC identifies revision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'No side effects', details the underlying opcode (0x0F) and decoding of the 32-bit response, and mentions error conditions ('Errors on connection failure or PINE FAIL'). This fully discloses 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?
The description is concise with clear section headers (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.
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?
For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, error handling, and return format. No gaps remain for the agent.
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, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema. It adds value by explaining the return states and how they map to numeric values, which is useful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 purpose: 'Get the emulator run state — 'running', 'paused', 'shutdown', or 'unknown''. It also distinguishes from sibling pine_get_info which batches Status with metadata, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does uniquely.
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?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Cheap (1 PINE round-trip) check before timing-sensitive sequences — writes work while paused but only take visible effect after unpause.' It also specifies when to use an alternative: 'For game metadata (title, serial, CRC) use pine_get_info.' This helps the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully covers behavior: 'No side effects — pure read,' explains byte order and alignment constraints, warns about silent corruption on unaligned access, describes the PINE FAIL response for unmapped addresses, and mentions a ~10s timeout. It is comprehensive.
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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, memory map, RETURNS). It is front-loaded with essential information, and every sentence adds value. Despite length, it earns its place given the complexity of emulator memory access.
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?
For a simple 16-bit read tool, the description covers alignment, byte order, error handling, and provides a memory map reference. It references sibling tools for alternative scenarios. The return format is described, and no output schema is needed. It is fully complete for the tool's purpose.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'address', but the description adds significant value: it explains why alignment is required, the consequence of misalignment, the useful address range, and the return format. While the schema provides basics, this enrichment justifies a score above baseline (3).
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 begins with 'PURPOSE: Read an unsigned 16-bit little-endian value from the emulator's EE main address space at the given absolute address,' clearly specifying verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like pine_read8, pine_read32, and pine_read_range.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for 16-bit fields...') and when not, providing alternatives such as pine_read8 for single bytes, pine_read32/64 for larger sizes, and pine_read_range for unaligned or big-endian fields. This gives clear decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses no side effects, alignment requirement, unaligned behavior, return format, timeout, and error response. No contradictions.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and usage, but includes a large address landmarks block that may be too detailed for a single tool. Still well-organized and earns its length.
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?
No output schema, yet description explains return format. Covers behavior, error handling, and usage context. Complete for a read tool.
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 100%, but description adds significant meaning: alignment requirement, address range hint, return format. Goes well beyond 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?
Clear verb ('Read'), specific data type (unsigned 32-bit little-endian), and resource (EE main address space). Distinguishes from siblings by size and endianness.
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 states when to use (32-bit fields) and when not to (different sizes, big-endian, unaligned). Provides alternative tool names (read8/16/64, read_range).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description discloses destructiveness, lack of undo, bypass of TLB/DMA, silent drops on BIOS, alignment requirements, unaligned corruption risk, and error conditions fully.
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?
Well-structured with sections, but somewhat lengthy due to address space landmarks. However, all content is relevant and front-loaded, justifying the length.
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?
Covers purpose, usage, behavior, address space, parameters, and returns fully. No output schema, but return format is described, making it complete.
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 100%, but the description adds endianness details, signed/float encoding, alignment warnings, and return format, providing significant value 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 writes an unsigned 32-bit little-endian value to the EE main address space, and mentions it for cheats/pokes. It distinguishes from siblings by naming pine_write8/write16/write64 for other sizes.
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?
Explicit when-to-use (timestamps, large counters) and when-not (use other size tools, avoid chaining for 64-bit). Also advises on big-endian handling. Very clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: 'DESTRUCTIVE: overwrites eight bytes from address with no undo', 'Direct write — bypasses TLB; writes to read-only regions silently dropped', alignment constraints and silent corruption on unaligned access, atomicity from emulator perspective, and error conditions.
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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, returns) and a helpful memory map. Every sentence adds necessary context; no filler. It is front-loaded with purpose and atomicity.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format. It provides extensive context: alignment enforcement details, address space landmarks, atomicity, error handling, and prerequisites. It is self-contained and leaves no ambiguity for a competent agent.
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 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains address landmarks (EE main RAM regions), alignment requirements beyond schema, the reason for decimal string (precision beyond 2^53), and two's complement encoding for signed values.
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 'Write an unsigned 64-bit little-endian value to EE main address space' and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'For true 64-bit writes' and contrasting with chaining two write32 calls. It also references smaller siblings for other bit widths.
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 advises when to use this tool ('For true 64-bit writes — full pointers, large IDs, packed doubleword state') and when not ('For 8/16/32-bit values use the corresponding sibling'). Also warns about alignment and recommends pine_read_range for unaligned multi-byte reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-pine MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmang-dev/mcp-pine/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmang-dev/mcp-pine)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-pine MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmang-dev/mcp-pine/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmang-dev/mcp-pine)

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/dmang-dev/mcp-pine'

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