Skip to main content
Glama
ProductOfAmerica

mcp-server-kicad

add_via

Add a via at a position.

Instructions

Add a via at a position.

Args:
    x: X position
    y: Y position
    size: Via pad size in mm
    drill: Drill diameter in mm
    net: A net number from list_pcb_nets, or 0 for no net. Any other number is refused
        and nothing is written, and so is every number but 0 on a board in KiCad 9's
        format or older that has no net table. A KiCad 10 board holds nets by name and
        its numbers are derived from where each net first appears, so read
        list_pcb_nets again after an edit.
    layers: Via layers (default: ["F.Cu", "B.Cu"])
    pcb_path: Path to .kicad_pcb file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
netNo
sizeNo
drillNo
layersNo
pcb_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a non-zero net on an older/format-9 board is refused and nothing is written, and that KiCad 10 derives net numbers from appearance order requiring a re-read of list_pcb_nets after edits. This is exactly the mutation-risk context annotations alone (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line and the Args block is organized and scannable. It is somewhat verbose in the net explanation, but that verbosity is load-bearing rather than filler.

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 format need not be explained, and the description covers the critical preconditions for a non-idempotent write. It could still note valid layer name formats or which board layer pair is required, leaving a small gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: units for size/drill (mm), layers default ['F.Cu','B.Cu'], net semantics and refusal rules, and pcb_path optionality with default fallback. All seven parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Add a via at a position') so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related add_thermal_vias sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion versus alternatives such as add_thermal_vias; the only routing hint is embedded in the net parameter (use list_pcb_nets). Usage is implied at best.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools