pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pet_disk_create

Create blank d64, d80, or d82 disk images for Commodore PET software development and testing.

Instructions

Create a blank d64/d80/d82 disk image.

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": {
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "pet_disk_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`image`	Yes
`label`	No	disk
`disk_id`	No	00

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, required permissions, or disk size limits. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informational value for brevity; a slightly longer description could convey more without being verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return value, file creation location, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the parameters. It does not clarify that 'image' likely means filename/path, or what 'label' and 'disk_id' represent. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names and defaults.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'blank d64/d80/d82 disk image', specifying the disk image types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_disk_get, pet_disk_ls, and pet_disk_boot, which have different purposes.

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 provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would not know if this tool is suitable for overwriting an existing file or creating a new disk for a specific purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.