Skip to main content
Glama
ProductOfAmerica

mcp-server-kicad

Check one proposed footprint position

check_placement
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if placing or moving a footprint to proposed x, y coordinates violates board placement constraints before committing.

Instructions

Check if placing/moving a footprint to (x, y) would violate constraints.

Both checks are on the footprint's origin point, not its courtyard, so a
footprint whose body overlaps a keep-out while its origin does not still
reports ok. That is also why there is no rotation parameter: rotating about
the origin cannot move the origin, so an angle could not change either
answer.

Keep-outs are read as KiCad reads them: a footprint's own keep-outs in board
coordinates, as the file stores them; a layer set such as *.Cu or F&B.Cu as
the layers it names; the footprint on its side, B.Cu or else F.Cu, as KiCad
reads any other footprint layer; and the footprint's own keep-outs never
count against it (intersectsArea skips an area whose parent is the item,
pcbnew/pcbexpr_functions.cpp:697 at 9.0.8).

Args:
    reference: Footprint reference designator
    x: Proposed X position
    y: Proposed Y position
    pcb_path: Path to .kicad_pcb file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
pcb_pathNo
referenceYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
board_edge_checkedYes
keepout_violationsYes
outside_board_edgeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.17.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / rotation
      Removed value: -{
      -  "default": 0,
      -  "title": "Rotation",
      -  "type": "number"
      -}
  2. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description goes well beyond them: checks operate on the origin, not the courtyard, so body overlaps can still report ok; no rotation parameter exists because rotating about the origin cannot change the answer; and keep-out reading semantics (layer expansion, KiCad's own-keepout exclusion) are spelled out. That is genuine behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by rationale caveats and then Args. Efficient overall, though the embedded source citation (pcbnew/pcbexpr_functions.cpp:697 at 9.0.8) is closer to implementation trivia than agent-usable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the subtle semantics an agent needs (origin-based checks, no rotation, keep-out interpretation) plus every parameter. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params, and it does via an Args block covering all four: reference designator, proposed x/y, and optional pcb_path that falls back to the configured default. It does not state units for x/y (presumably mm), which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (placing/moving a footprint to x,y) plus the outcome being evaluated (constraint violation). An agent can immediately distinguish this simulation/pre-flight check from the sibling move_footprint, which actually mutates placement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it's clearly a pre-flight query, but the description never says 'use before move_footprint' nor names any exclusion or alternative. The caveats about origin-point checking and no rotation parameter give useful framing but are not routing guidance.

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