kicad

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_component_pins

Retrieve all pins of a KiCad component with positions, electrical types, and names in absolute schematic coordinates for connectivity and layout checks.

Instructions

Get comprehensive pin information for a component.

Returns all pins for the specified component with complete metadata including positions, electrical types, and pin names. Positions are in absolute schematic coordinates accounting for component rotation.

Args: reference: Component reference designator (e.g., "R1", "U2", "IC1") ctx: MCP context for progress reporting (optional)

Returns: ComponentPinsOutput with all pin information, or ErrorOutput on failure

Examples: >>> # Get all pins for a resistor >>> result = await get_component_pins("R1") >>> print(f"Found {result.pin_count} pins")

>>> # Get pins for an IC
>>> result = await get_component_pins("U1")
>>> for pin in result.pins:
...     print(f"Pin {pin.number}: {pin.name} @ ({pin.position.x}, {pin.position.y})")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does real work: it discloses the return type (ComponentPinsOutput), error behavior (ErrorOutput on failure), and the non-obvious coordinate semantics ('absolute schematic coordinates accounting for component rotation'). It stops short of an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement, but 'Get' plus the error/return detail covers most of the gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then Args/Returns/Examples in a clear hierarchy. It is somewhat verbose for a single-parameter tool, and the Returns section partially repeats what the output schema already conveys, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still supplies coordinate and error semantics that help correct invocation. For a simple read tool with one parameter, it is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines 'reference' as a component reference designator and supplies concrete examples ('R1', 'U2', 'IC1'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get comprehensive pin information for a component') and clarifies scope ('all pins for the specified component'), which implicitly contrasts with find_pins_by_name / find_pins_by_type. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose ('get all pins for a component'). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the sibling pin-search tools that would route an agent correctly.

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