Skip to main content
Glama

remove_component

Destructive

Removes a specified component (by reference designator) from an LTspice .asc schematic, with optional cleanup of connected wires.

Instructions

Remove a component from an .asc schematic by reference designator.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to .asc schematic
referenceYesComponent reference to remove (e.g., 'R1', 'M3')
cleanup_wiresNoWhen true, also delete every wire whose endpoint touches one of the removed component's pins (Fr7). Default false keeps the v2 behaviour of leaving wires in place and surfacing a warning, so callers can opt in once they've confirmed the removal is clean.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the removal action. The description adds no contradictions but also does not elaborate on side effects beyond what the cleanup_wires parameter description covers. It is sufficiently transparent for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose. However, it could be improved by noting its relationship to sibling tools or specifying that removal is permanent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 tool removes a component from a schematic by reference designator, which is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component or 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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