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

pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pet_mem_write

Write byte values to emulated Commodore PET memory at a specified address, supporting decimal, hex, or symbol addressing.

Instructions

Write bytes to emulated memory. addr accepts $hex/0xhex/decimal/symbol.

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": {
      "addr": "<addr>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "pet_mem_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addrYes
valuesYes
sessionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions address format, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., overwriting, permissions required, error handling for invalid addresses).

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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool action and clarifying the input format. There is no redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (write operation, 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, session behavior, and byte value constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the address format ('$hex/0xhex/decimal/symbol'), but it does not clarify the 'values' parameter (expected range, byte count) or the optional 'session' parameter.

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 'Write' and the resource 'emulated memory', making the tool's action unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like pet_mem_read (read) and pet_mem_find (find).

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, such as pet_mem_read or pet_mem_find. The description does not exclude any contexts or mention prerequisites.

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