pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pet_disk_get

Copy a file from a Commodore PET disk image to the host system.

Instructions

Copy a file off a disk image to the host.

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": "<name>",
      "dest": "<dest>"
    },
    "name": "pet_disk_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dest`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`image`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only (likely safe) or if it modifies the disk image (unlikely). No such details are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded and not verbose, but it sacrifices helpfulness for brevity. It earns its place but does not add value beyond the bare minimum.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify the data types, error handling, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 does not explain the parameters beyond their names in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must guess that 'image' refers to the disk image path, 'name' is the file on the image, and 'dest' is the host destination. No additional meaning is added.

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 clearly states the action: 'Copy a file off a disk image to the host.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like pet_disk_put (which copies onto the image). However, it could be more explicit about the direction (from emulated disk to host filesystem).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it's for extracting files, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites exist (e.g., disk image must be mounted).

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