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

pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pet_run

Build, tokenize, and run Commodore PET programs from source files. Automatically registers assembly symbols and handles .bas, .s, .prg formats.

Instructions

Build/tokenize a .bas/.s/.prg as needed, then load and RUN it on the running PET. Registers assembly symbols on the session automatically.

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_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes
sessionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: conditional build/tokenization, loading, running, and symbol registration. It lacks details about potential side effects (e.g., screen output, memory overwrites) but covers the primary actions adequately.

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 is a single sentence with 22 words, efficiently conveying the purpose and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or 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 no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or what happens after the run. A more detailed description is needed for such a complex operation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'source' or 'session' parameters. The description only hints at input file types via extensions in the purpose, but fails to define parameter roles or constraints.

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 specifies the verb (build/tokenize, load, run) and the resource (PET program files). It explicitly mentions the file types (.bas/.s/.prg) and the automatic registration of assembly symbols, distinguishing it from siblings like pet_build and pet_load.

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 that this tool is used to run a program after building/tokenizing if necessary, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like pet_build, pet_load, or pet_continue. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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