pet-tools-mcp

by nschneir

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pet_test_run

Run a declarative YAML test that boots a fresh Commodore PET session for automated code verification.

Instructions

Run a declarative YAML test (boots its own fresh PET; see spec §8).

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": {
      "yaml_file": "<yaml_file>"
    },
    "name": "pet_test_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`yaml_file`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions that it 'boots its own fresh PET,' implying a new environment. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens to existing sessions.

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 succinct with one clear sentence and an external reference. No redundant information, but the brevity sacrifices some clarity.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It relies on an external spec for completeness, making it insufficient for standalone understanding.

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% for the single parameter 'yaml_file'. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints beyond the tool's overall action, leaving the agent without necessary details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as running a declarative YAML test and notes that it boots its own fresh PET, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_run. However, it could be more specific about what a 'declarative YAML test' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pet_run or pet_build. The reference to 'see spec §8' is not actionable within the description itself.

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