PureData-MCP

Add Live Pure Data Object

pd_live_add_object

Add a single safe-palette object to the live canvas for small follow-up edits by specifying its type, position, and optional arguments.

Instructions

Add one safe-palette object to the visible MCP live canvas. Use only for tiny follow-up edits; for complete musical patches, generate a full graph and call pd_live_replace_graph once.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "pd_live_add_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`args`	No
`type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'safe-palette' and 'visible canvas,' but does not explain side effects, constraints on existing objects, what happens when called outside a live session, or response/error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 tightly-worded sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second supplies usage boundaries. Very efficient.

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?

While the usage contrast with pd_live_replace_graph is valuable, the description omits essential details: parameter meanings, coordinate system, prerequisites (e.g., active live canvas), and return value. With no annotations or output schema, this is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. It fails to clarify that 'x' and 'y' are canvas coordinates, or that 'args' holds arguments for the object. The agent is left to infer semantics from the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Add one safe-palette object to the visible MCP live canvas'), clearly stating verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from the primary alternative by mentioning pd_live_replace_graph for complete patches, which helps disambiguate among sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use only for tiny follow-up edits,' and when not to: 'for complete musical patches, generate a full graph and call pd_live_replace_graph once.' This is direct guidance for tool selection.

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