pd_stopWhen you need to end audio output, stop the Pure Data process to silence sound and halt live patching.
Silence and stop the currently running Pd process.
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_stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral consequences, but it only states the action ('Silence and stop'). It does not mention side effects such as losing unsaved changes, terminating a live session, or the effect of the 'force' parameter. This is insufficient for a process-terminating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it could include more details, it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description omits the meaning of the 'force' parameter and does not explain the effect on related live sessions (e.g., pd_start_live_session). Without annotations, these missing details leave the description incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'force' with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent is left to guess what 'force' does (e.g., force kill vs. graceful stop), which is a critical gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('currently running Pd process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pd_start_live_session or pd_open_patch, as none of them are about stopping the process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the tool should be used when the user wants to stop the currently running Pd process. However, the description does not provide explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pausing or sending control signals) or any when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.