pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pet_disk_put

Copy a file from the host system onto a Commodore PET disk image for use with the VICE emulator.

Instructions

Copy a host file onto a 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>",
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "pet_disk_put"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`name`	No
`image`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behaviors like overwrite policy, disk space handling, or requiremount status. The minimal description lacks essential behavioral context.

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 communicates the core action efficiently. However, it lacks structured breakdown for parameters or usage nuances.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. Parameter names are self-explanatory but details like 'name' usage are not clarified.

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 ('Copy'), source ('host file'), and target ('onto a disk image'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like pet_disk_get or pet_disk_ls.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or scenarios. It only states the basic function.

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