Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
synthlab-mcp

synthlab-mcp

by j0KZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_patch

Analyze Pure Data .pd files to get object counts, signal flow graphs, DSP chain detection, complexity scoring, and validation results.

Instructions

Analyze a Pure Data .pd file: object counts by category, signal flow graph, DSP chain detection, complexity scoring, and validation.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesAbsolute file path to a .pd file, or raw .pd text content. If it starts with '#N canvas' it is treated as raw text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It lists what the tool produces, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications. As a read-only analysis, the lack of side effects is inferred, but not stated.

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 sentence that effectively lists the tool's capabilities without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could mention that the output is a structured result, but since no output schema exists, the description itself is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds significant value beyond the schema by specifying that if the source starts with '#N canvas', it is treated as raw text. This clarifies the dual nature of the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the added context pushes it to 5.

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 clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and resource 'Pure Data .pd file', and enumerates specific outputs (object counts, signal flow graph, DSP chain, complexity scoring, validation). This differentiates it from sibling tools like validate_patch, which likely only validates.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of parse_patch or validate_patch. The description implies comprehensive analysis, but does not directly state when it is preferable.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools