pet-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pet_screen_text

Read the PET screen as plain text. Decodes graphics to Unicode glyphs; style='ascii' restores legacy mapping. Faster and more reliable than screenshots for AI agents.

Instructions

Read the PET screen as plain text. This is the PREFERRED way to see program output — faster and more reliable than screenshots for AI use. Graphics decode to Unicode glyphs; style="ascii" restores the legacy conservative mapping.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pet_screen_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`style`	No	unicode
`session`	No
`ansi_reverse`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0Jul 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ansi_reverse

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Ansi Reverse",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / style

Added value: +{
+  "default": "unicode",
+  "title": "Style",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that graphics decode to Unicode by default and style='ascii' restores legacy mapping. It does not mention session or ansi_reverse behaviors, but the core read operation is well described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, recommendation, and parameter detail.

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 a read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's main function and the key parameter but omits the other two parameters and the return format (plain text). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so description must compensate. Only the 'style' parameter is briefly explained (Unicode default vs. ASCII legacy). The 'session' and 'ansi_reverse' parameters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool reads the PET screen as plain text, explicitly distinguishes from screenshots as the preferred and faster method, and mentions the stylistic choice between Unicode and ASCII.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the preferred way to see program output, faster and more reliable than screenshots, guiding agents to use it over pet_screenshot. Does not cover when not to use it or alternative scenarios beyond screenshots.

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