kernelCAD

Query Netlist Connectivity

netlist_query

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask a net-level question about a schematic: what connects to what.

MODES (query): • "net" — the full membership of one net (net required). • "pin" — which net a component pin is on (component + pin required). • "component" — every net a component touches (component required). • "shares" — do two pins share a net (component+pin and otherComponent+otherPin). • "unconnected" — every pin with no net. • "summary" — counts only.

INPUT: schematic (same shape as netlist_export) plus the mode selector and its arguments.

OUTPUT: { query, found, ... } — for "net", the net with its endpoints; for "pin", the net name or null; for "component", the list of nets and the pin→net map; for "shares", a boolean; for "unconnected", the list of pins; for "summary", the stats.

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": {
      "schematic": "<schematic>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "netlist_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`net`	No	mode "net": the net name to look up.
`pin`	No	mode "pin"/"shares": the pin number.
`query`	Yes	Which question to answer.
`otherPin`	No	mode "shares": the second pin number.
`component`	No	mode "pin"/"component"/"shares": the reference designator.
`schematic`	Yes
`otherComponent`	No	mode "shares": the second reference designator.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by spelling out the per-mode return semantics ('the net name or null' for pin mode, a boolean for shares, counts for summary), which tells the agent what success looks like. It does not describe behavior on malformed schematics or missing nets, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 MODES / INPUT / OUTPUT sectioning is scannable and front-loaded with the purpose before the enumeration. The OUTPUT paragraph partially duplicates the existing output schema and the mode parameter mapping repeats the schema, so a small amount of the text does not earn its place.

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?

For a seven-parameter, deeply nested tool this is close to complete: every mode, its arguments, and its return form are accounted for, and the 'schematic takes the same shape as netlist_export' note links it to the producer tool. It leaves the meaning of the 'found' flag undocumented and says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown net or component.

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 description coverage is 86% and each parameter's description already carries its mode binding (e.g. 'mode "shares": the second reference designator'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates that mapping in a convenient consolidated form but adds no new detail such as format rules or cross-parameter constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('ask a net-level question about a schematic: what connects to what') and immediately enumerates the exact question types it answers. Its relationship to netlist_export is implied via the shared input shape, so an agent can distinguish this read-only query tool from the export tool without opening either schema.

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?

The MODES block is strong when-to-use guidance: each mode is paired with the exact parameters it requires, so selection between 'net', 'pin', 'component', 'shares', 'unconnected' and 'summary' is unambiguous. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over netlist_export or the generic 'query' sibling, and there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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

All kernelCAD tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.