PureData-MCP

Replace Live Pure Data Graph

pd_live_replace_graph

Replace the entire agent-managed Pure Data live graph with a safe precomposed graph, then render it into the visible GUI canvas.

Instructions

Preferred live composition path: replace the entire agent-managed live graph with a safe precomposed graph, then render it into the visible Pd GUI canvas.

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": {
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "pd_live_replace_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodes`	Yes
`connections`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal that this is a destructive 'replace' of the existing graph and that it affects the visible GUI. Yet it does not mention whether it stops audio, resets state, or the safety mechanisms behind 'safe precomposed graph', leaving gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and outcome. It includes a slight redundancy ('Preferred live composition path') but otherwise contains no wasted words.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context about return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or side effects beyond the basic replace-and-render behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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 makes no explicit mention of the 'nodes' and 'connections' parameters. The term 'graph' implies these structures but provides no detail on their purpose, format, or constraints, forcing the agent to rely solely on the inline schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('agent-managed live graph'), and explicitly mentions rendering to the GUI canvas. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating this is the 'preferred live composition path' and replaces the entire graph, unlike incremental tools like pd_live_add_object.

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 clearly positions itself as the preferred path for live composition, giving strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for smaller changes, 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.