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

pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pet_key_type

Insert text into the Commodore PET keyboard buffer without affecting live key-down state. Use \n for the return key.

Instructions

Type text into the running PET's keyboard buffer (\n = RETURN). Buffered keys never touch the live key-down state — games reading $97 need pet_key_hold.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "pet_key_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
sessionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that keys are buffered and never touch live key-down state, and clarifies the purpose of pet_key_hold. This is sufficient for a typing tool, though more details on behavior (e.g., buffer limits) could improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action and key details. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For 2 params and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behavior but lacks details on session parameter, return value, buffer size limits, or side effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only adds meaning for the 'text' parameter (type string, for RETURN) but does not explain the 'session' parameter at all. Since coverage is low, description should compensate more for both parameters.

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 types text into the PET's keyboard buffer, specifies the special character for RETURN, and distinguishes from pet_key_hold by noting buffered keys don't affect live key-down state. This effectively differentiates it from siblings.

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 implicitly contrasts with pet_key_hold for games reading $97, suggesting when to use each. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use pet_basic_type, another sibling, but the differentiation is still clear for the key-related tools.

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