Skip to main content
Glama

add_component

Add a component to an LTspice schematic by specifying symbol, reference designator, and grid coordinates, with optional value, rotation, and attributes.

Instructions

Add a new component to an .asc schematic at a specified grid position.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to .asc schematic
referenceYesReference designator (e.g., 'M1', 'R3', 'VDD')
symbolYesSymbol name (e.g., 'nmos', 'pmos', 'res', 'cap', 'voltage')
xYesX coordinate (LTspice grid units)
yYesY coordinate (LTspice grid units)
valueNoComponent value (e.g., '10k', 'NMOS_3V3')
rotationNoRotation/mirror (PMOS typically M180, NMOS typically R0)R0
attributesNoOptional attributes to set (e.g., {'SpiceLine': 'W=10u L=0.5u', 'Value2': '...'})
formatNoResponse format: 'json' for structured data, 'text' for human-readable

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceNo
symbolNo
positionNo
rotationNo
pinsNo
bounding_boxNo
warningsNo
validation_warningsNo
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation but no destructive behavior. Description adds no details about error conditions (e.g., duplicate reference), side effects, or need for prior schematic existence.

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?

Single clear sentence, front-loaded. Efficient but could benefit from a brief note on behavior or response format.

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?

With 9 parameters and output schema present, description covers basic purpose but lacks constraints, error handling, and output description. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (add), the resource (component to .asc schematic), and the positioning (at specified grid position). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_component and move_component.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., set_component_value, create_schematic). No prerequisites or context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/Cognitohazard/ltspice-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server