schematic-mcp-bridge
schematic-mcp
Система, рассчитанная на ИИ-агентов, для построения электрических схем: MCP-сервер предоставляет высокоуровневый семантический API (компоненты, выводы, цепи), чтобы LLM никогда не приходилось работать напрямую с координатами, проводами или внутренней структурой .kicad_sch.
AI Agent → MCP / high-level API → semantic schematic model → validation/ERC
→ automatic layout → SVG and/or KiCad schematicПолная спецификация — в schematic_mcp_requirements.md, правила для агентов — в SKILL.md.
Статус
Этап 1 завершён: минимальная семантическая модель (
Component,Pin,Net,Schematic) с сохранением/загрузкой в JSON, вschematic/model.py.Этап 2 завершён: импорт библиотеки символов KiCad на основе SKiDL (
schematic/library.py:search_components/get_component_pins/instantiate) и структурная валидация + базовый ERC (schematic/validation.py:validate/run_erc). Протестировано на реальных официальных библиотеках символов KiCad, включённых вtests/fixtures/kicad-symbols/(Device,MCU_Espressif,Sensor_Current).Этап 3 завершён: наивная автоматическая компоновка (
schematic/layout.py, один ряд прямоугольников, без перекрытий), SVG-рендерер (schematic/renderer.py), который рисует прямоугольники компонентов с номерами/именами выводов и подписи имён цепей рядом с каждым выводом — пока без нарисованных проводов, связность показана подписями (см. раздел 11 требований); также CLI (cli/main.py:search,validate,render).Этап 4 завершён: MCP-сервер (
mcp_server/server.py) с полным списком инструментов из раздела 8 — поиск по библиотеке, жизненный цикл схемы, соединения, подсказки компоновки, валидация/ERC и SVG-вывод — через stdio. Логика с состоянием живёт вmcp_server/tools.py::SchematicSession(одна активная схема на сессию), без привязки к фреймворку, поэтому её можно тестировать напрямую без MCP-клиента.set_placement_hint/set_pin_side/group_componentsуже сохраняют намерения в модели.Этап 5 завершён:
auto_layoutтеперь учитывает подсказкиleft_of/right_of(топологическая перестановка ряда; остальные отношения пока игнорируются, настоящая 2D-компоновка — территория этапа 7, если это вообще понадобится). Новыйschematic/routing.pyрисует реальный ортогональный провод между двумя компонентами, когда они оказываются непосредственными соседями и это цепь с ровно двумя выводами, и при этом выводы смотрят друг на друга; в противном случае по-прежнему ставится подпись цепи, поскольку прокладка провода в обход промежуточного прямоугольника — уже настоящая работа для алгоритма трассировки (внеочереди).set_pin_side/group_componentsпо-прежнему только сохраняются, но не применяются.Этап 6 завершён: экспорт в
.kicad_sch(schematic/exporters/kicad.py), использующий собственный генератор схем SKiDL, а не собственную ручную реализацию записи файлов KiCad — он уже рисует настоящие классические символы с правильной геометрией (это явное предпочтение из разделов 4/19). Работает только для компонентов, полученных из реального библиотечного символа черезadd_component; для компонента, созданного вручную/придуманного или не разрешающегося в реальный символ, выбрасываетсяKicadExportError, а не молча создаётся битый файл.examples/esp32_ina226.jsonэкспортировать нельзя (его выводы ESP32/INA226 — это вручную созданные заглушки, а не настоящие символы); см.examples/build_rc_filter.py— небольшую схему, собранную полностью из реальных библиотечных деталей, которую экспортировать можно. Также потребовалось добавить Pnpower.kicad_sym(генератор схем SKiDL загружает его всегда).
Ещё исправлен реальный баг, найденный при разработке этого примера с RC-фильтром: ComponentLibrary.instantiate() по умолчанию подставлял в reference голый ref_prefix из библиотеки ('R' — для каждого резистора) вместо component_id — поэтому добавление второго резистора без явного reference= давало ложную ошибку ERC duplicate_reference для совершенно корректной схемы.
MVP теперь полностью завершается сквозной цепочкой (поиск → добавление → соединение → валидация/ERC → экспорт SVG/KiCad) как через CLI, так и через MCP-сервер. Осталась только необязательная полировка: этап 7 (2D-компоновка на основе ELK + общая трассировка провода) явно упомянут в спецификации как «только если этого будет недостаточно», и он не является обязательством.
Related MCP server: KiCAD MCP Server
Разработка
python3 -m pip install --user --break-system-packages -e ".[dev]"
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m pytest
# CLI
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m cli.main search resistor
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m cli.main validate examples/esp32_ina226.json
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m cli.main render examples/esp32_ina226.json -o out.svg
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m cli.main export-kicad examples/rc_filter.json -o out.kicad_sch
# MCP server (stdio)
PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m mcp_server.serverAvailable Tools
22 toolsadd_componentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| reference | No | ||
| library_id | Yes | ||
| component_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
auto_layoutD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
connectD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin_a | Yes | ||
| pin_b | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
connect_netD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pins | Yes | ||
| net_name | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_schematicD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
disconnectD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_kicadD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_componentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_component_pinsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_previewD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
group_componentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_name | Yes | ||
| component_ids | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
load_schematicD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
remove_componentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rename_netD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
render_svgD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_ercD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
save_schematicD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_componentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_component_valueD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| component_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_pin_sideD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | ||
| side | Yes | ||
| component_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_placement_hintD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| relation | Yes | ||
| component_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validateD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Several tool pairs overlap in purpose: connect and connect_net both appear to handle wiring, validate and run_erc both check the design, and render_svg and get_preview both produce visual output. Without descriptions, an agent would struggle to choose between these near-duplicates.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as search_components, create_schematic, set_component_value, and export_kicad. A few bare verbs like connect, disconnect, and validate, plus auto_layout, deviate slightly but the overall pattern remains predictable.
At 22 tools, the server sits in the heavy range. The count is plausible for a schematic editor workflow, but redundant tools like connect/connect_net and validate/run_erc make the set feel larger than it needs to be.
The tool surface covers the core schematic lifecycle: component search/placement, schematic create/load/save, wiring, validation, layout, rendering, and KiCad export. Minor gaps such as explicit component move or net deletion are workable through existing tools like set_placement_hint and disconnect.
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Verified KiCad footprints, symbols & 3D models for AI agents. No signup, CC-BY-4.0, quality-gated.
Electronic component datasheets for AI agents — specs, pinouts, package data on demand.
Agent-first CAD: editable .kcad.ts source, deterministic review, OpenCASCADE kernel.
Create and edit architecture diagrams from your AI agent; get an SVG and a live editable canvas.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI tools to create, edit, and inspect KiCAD schematic files, including components, wires, labels, and sheets.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants like Claude to interact with KiCAD for PCB design automation, providing comprehensive tool schemas and real-time project state access.502MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables language models to design real KiCad electronic schematics from plain-language descriptions, placing parts, wiring nets, and running KiCad's electrical rules check to produce editable .kicad_sch files.2
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with KiCAD for PCB design automation. Users can design PCBs using natural language, including component placement, routing, checks, and export.50MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/10on/schematic-mcp-bridge'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server