pet-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pet_package

Package Commodore PET source files into a .prg or disk image that autostarts when loaded in VICE. Returns the exact run command.

Instructions

Package a .s/.bas/.prg into an artifact any VICE user can run: a .prg, or (when output ends in .d64/.d80/.d82) a disk image whose first file is the program so xpet out.d64 autostarts it. Returns the exact run command in "run".

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "pet_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`model`	No	pet4032
`title`	No
`output`	No
`source`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format based on extension and the return of a run command. However, it does not mention side effects, required session, or authorization needs, which are important for a packaging tool.

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 concise, action-oriented sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a key behavioral detail (return of run command). Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and output format, but omits parameter details and prerequisites (e.g., whether a PET session is needed). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source and output parameters implicitly (source is the input file, output determines disk vs prg), but model and title are not explained at all. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 packages .s/.bas/.prg files into a .prg or disk image that any VICE user can run, with specific details on autostart behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_build or pet_run by focusing on creating distributable artifacts.

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 implies usage for distribution ('any VICE user can run') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pet_build. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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