PureData-MCP

Clear Live Pure Data Canvas

pd_live_clear

Clear the agent-managed live canvas and reset object IDs, giving you a clean slate to rebuild your Pure Data patch.

Instructions

Clear the agent-managed MCP live canvas and reset its object ids.

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": "pd_live_clear"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states a destructive action ('Clear') and an id reset, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., losing all objects and connections, irreversibility) or whether it affects the live session state. Given the lack of annotation protection, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It effectively communicates the action and its effect.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks behavioral context around what 'clear' means for existing objects and connections, and whether the action is reversible, which is expected for a destructive tool under the no-annotations condition.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but with zero params the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Clear') and identifies the exact resource ('agent-managed MCP live canvas') plus the effect ('reset its object ids'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pd_live_remove_object or pd_live_replace_graph.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (use when you need to clear the canvas), but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like removing individual objects or replacing the graph. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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