pet-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pet_load

Load a .prg file into a VICE PET session via autostart, optionally skipping RUN, and register label files for symbolic debugging.

Instructions

Load a .prg via autostart (optionally without RUN); optionally register a VICE label file for symbolic debugging.

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": {
      "prg": "<prg>"
    },
    "name": "pet_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prg`	Yes
`run`	No
`session`	No
`symbols`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses loading behavior, optional RUN execution, and symbol registration for debugging. However, it omits side effects (e.g., program state overwrite) and does not clarify the 'autostart' mechanism for unfamiliar users.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate clauses for clarity) without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the output or state after loading (e.g., 'program loaded and ready' or 'execution started if run'). It also lacks prerequisites like needing an active session, which is suggested by the session parameter.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains prg (implied), run (with 'optionally without RUN'), and symbols (VICE label file), but entirely misses the 'session' parameter. The parameter types are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Load' and the resource '.prg' via autostart, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like pet_run (which runs) and pet_build (which builds) by specifying loading via autostart with optional steps.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pet_run, pet_build, or pet_disk_boot. It implies loading via autostart but offers no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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