Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pet-tools-mcp

pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pet_build

Assemble 6502 source code using ca65 syntax into .prg and VICE label files for Commodore PET development.

Instructions

Assemble 6502 source (ca65 syntax) to a .prg + VICE label file.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "pet_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNopet4032
sourceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output files (.prg, label file) but omits potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files), authorization needs, or output format details. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, omitting parameter explanations and usage context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the 2-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: source input format, model semantics, output file locations, and preconditions. Incomplete for a reliable tool invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no information about parameters. The schema has 0% coverage, and 'model' (default pet4032) and 'source' are unexplained. Agents must infer meanings from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: assembling 6502 source (ca65 syntax) to .prg and VICE label files. It specifies the input source language and output file types, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that focus on debugging, running, or other operations.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when assembly of ca65 source is needed, which is unique among siblings, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid it, nor prerequisites or context (e.g., need for an active session or source file location).

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