MCP-ADAPTER

orcad_parse_pspice_output

Parse PSpice .out files to extract errors, warnings, node voltages, and total power from analog and mixed-signal circuit simulations.

Instructions

[OrCAD PSpice/Capture/PCB Editor: analog & mixed-signal circuit simulation, schematics, PCB] Parse an existing PSpice .out file (errors, warnings, node voltages, total power).

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": {
      "out_file": "<out_file>"
    },
    "name": "orcad_parse_pspice_output"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`out_file`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the parser returns (errors, warnings, node voltages, total power), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure modes, file-format requirements, permission needs, or output structure beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the domain tag prefix and the core action stated immediately. Compact and free of filler, though the bracketed vendor tag adds minor clutter.

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 values need not be described, and the single required parameter is conceptually covered. What remains missing is usage routing against sibling parsers and any note on malformed or missing files.

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 is 0% and the single parameter 'out_file' has only the title 'Out File'. The description does add meaning by specifying it is an 'existing PSpice .out file', clarifying format and existence expectations, but no path syntax or relative/absolute guidance is given.

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 (parse) and resource (PSpice .out file) and enumerates what is extracted: errors, warnings, node voltages, total power. It is clearly distinguishable from other tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like feko_parse_out as an alternative.

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?

The word 'existing' hints that a file must already be present, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named among the many sibling tools. Usage must be inferred.

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