Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
synthlab-mcp

synthlab-mcp

by j0KZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

parse_patch

Convert Pure Data .pd files into structured descriptions of objects, connections, and signal flow for analysis.

Instructions

Parse a Pure Data .pd file and return a structured description of its objects, connections, and signal flow.

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": "parse_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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool parses and returns a structured description but does not clarify side effects (e.g., non-destructive reads, file system access, or error handling).

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 clear sentence without waste, but could benefit from specifying output format or error cases. Still, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and output structure. It does not mention validation or error conditions, but these are minor gaps.

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 explaining that 'source' can be either a file path or raw .pd text, with a specific heuristic for detection (starts with '#N canvas'). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enhances understanding.

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 'parse', the resource 'Pure Data .pd file', and the specific outputs ('objects, connections, and signal flow'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_patch' which implies analysis rather than parsing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'analyze_patch' or 'validate_patch'). The description lacks context for selection or exclusion criteria.

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