Skip to main content
Glama
ProductOfAmerica

mcp-server-kicad

by ProductOfAmerica
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_project

Create a KiCad 9 project (.kicad_pro + root .kicad_sch).

Instructions

Create a KiCad 9 project (.kicad_pro + root .kicad_sch).

No .kicad_prl is written, and an existing .kicad_sch or .kicad_prl of that name is left
as it is; the result says whether the root schematic was created or kept.

Args:
    directory: Directory to create the project in (created if missing)
    name: Project name (used for filenames)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
directoryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it will not overwrite an existing .kicad_sch/.kicad_prl and reports whether the root schematic was created or kept. It does not mention auth or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 artifact statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, side effects follow, and the Args block is terse. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the description still flags the created-vs-kept status. Both required parameters are documented, making the definition sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and its Args section does so: directory is 'created if missing' and name is 'used for filenames'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string types, though it omits validation rules and naming constraints.

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 and resource ('Create a KiCad 9 project') and names the exact artifacts produced (.kicad_pro + root .kicad_sch). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_schematic, which only produce a schematic.

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?

It explains side-file behavior (no .kicad_prl, existing files left as-is) but never says when to prefer this over create_schematic or other creation siblings. Usage is implied by the artifact list rather than stated as a selection rule.

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