Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
synthlab-mcp

synthlab-mcp

by j0KZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

validate_patch

Identify structural problems in Pure Data patches: broken connections, orphan objects, unknown objects, and missing DSP sinks.

Instructions

Validate a Pure Data .pd file for structural issues: broken connections, orphan objects, unknown objects, missing DSP sinks.

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": "validate_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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the structural checks performed and implies read-only validation. Lacks details on failure behavior or side effects, but adequate for a validation tool.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose and scope. Front-loaded with action and subject, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema and no mention of return value format. For a validation tool, knowing what is returned (list of issues, boolean, etc.) is important. Parameter description is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage 100%; description almost repeats schema description. Adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'validate' and specific resource 'Pure Data .pd file', listing exact checks (broken connections, orphan objects, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like parse_patch or compose_patch.

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?

Implied usage for validation but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references. Agent must infer context from tool name and siblings.

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