Draw a straight copper track between specified coordinates in KiCad, optionally connecting it to an existing net.
Add one straight copper track, optionally assigned to an existing net; no autorouting or DRC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | F.Cu | |
| end_x_mm | Yes | ||
| end_y_mm | Yes | ||
| net_name | No | ||
| width_mm | No | ||
| start_x_mm | Yes | ||
| start_y_mm | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description correctly reflects a mutation. It adds the 'no autorouting or DRC' caveat and the optional net assignment, but does not disclose potential failure conditions (e.g., invalid net name, coordinate ranges) or side effects. This is adequate but not rich; no contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key caveat. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
With 7 parameters, 4 required, and zero schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. The description fails to explain the meaning of the coordinate parameters, the width default, the layer semantics, or the net_name behavior. An agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge to call this correctly, despite the output schema existing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions net assignment (net_name) and implies endpoints via 'straight track', but does not clarify start/end coordinates, width, layer, or their units. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add one straight copper track') and the resource, and adds a distinguishing constraint ('no autorouting or DRC') that separates it from hypothetical routing tools. It is specific and unambiguous, even without naming a sibling.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (manual track placement) via 'no autorouting or DRC', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. There are no similar add tools among siblings, so the lack of explicit routing is acceptable, but no clear when/not-when guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.