pet-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pet_wait_text

Wait until a specified text appears on the Commodore PET screen. Returns screen data on timeout without error.

Instructions

Block until TEXT appears on the screen. A timeout returns {"fired": null, "screen": ...} (not an error) so you can inspect what the program actually displayed.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "pet_wait_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`session`	No
`timeout`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers blocking nature, timeout return format, and that timeout is not an error. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a read/wait tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences pack the core behavior and unusual timeout return. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers blocking, timeout, and return structure. It lacks details on text matching (exact/substring) and session scope, but overall sufficient for a wait-on-screen-text tool.

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%, and the description only hints at 'TEXT' and 'timeout' parameters. The 'session' parameter is not mentioned. This leaves ambiguity about parameter roles and formats.

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 it blocks until text appears on screen, using the verb 'Block' and resource 'TEXT'. It differentiates from siblings like pet_wait_break and pet_wait_mem by focusing on text detection.

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?

The description explains timeout behavior (returns structure not error), which guides how to handle non-firing cases. It does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives, but the specificity of 'TEXT' implies its domain.

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