PureData-MCP

Create Pure Data Live Patch

pd_create_live_patch

Create a live-edit bridge Pure Data patch file with control and edit ports, enabling manual opening and later Codex attachment for live patching.

Instructions

Write a live-edit bridge .pd file with known control/edit ports so the user can open it manually and Codex can attach later.

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": {
      "targetPath": "<targetPath>"
    },
    "name": "pd_create_live_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dsp`	No
`editPort`	No
`overwrite`	No
`targetPath`	Yes
`controlPort`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description clearly discloses the primary side effect of writing a file and its workflow purpose. It does not mention behavior around overwriting existing files, dsp defaults, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides essential purpose and workflow context with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 it is a simple file-creation tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is created, why, and the follow-up workflow. It leaves some parameter details to the schema and does not mention return values, but these are not critical for this tool's primary use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the phrase 'control/edit ports' adds meaning to controlPort and editPort, and 'write a .pd file' implies targetPath. It does not explain dsp or overwrite, so compensation is partial but meaningful.

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 uses specific verb 'Write' with resource '.pd file' and clearly explains the unique purpose: a live-edit bridge with known control/edit ports for later attachment by Codex. This distinguishes it from siblings like pd_attach_live_session, pd_open_patch, and pd_save_patch.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use: creating the bridge file so the user can open it manually and Codex can attach later. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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