Skip to main content
Glama
ProductOfAmerica

mcp-server-kicad

duplicate_sheet

Destructive

Duplicate a hierarchical sheet, copying the child file with new UUIDs.

Instructions

Duplicate a hierarchical sheet, copying the child file with new UUIDs.

The new block is a copy of the source block, moved to its right, with its fields placed
again when the source's were autoplaced, and its page the lowest number no sheet uses,
stored at the parent's path where KiCad reads it. The copied file's symbols get references
of their own, so the two sheets are two sets of parts: each prefix takes its first free
number across the hierarchy, in the order of the symbols' x then y position, and the
units of one part keep one reference. A reference with no number stays as it is.

A source file that holds sheets of its own is refused, with nothing written, because its
sub-sheets would need new instance paths in other files. Give project_path when the
parent is itself a sub-sheet, so its place in the hierarchy can be found.

Args:
    sheet_uuid: UUID of the sheet to duplicate
    new_sheet_name: Display name for the new sheet
    schematic_path: Path to parent .kicad_sch. Optional; omit to use the configured default.
    project_path: Path to .kicad_pro (for hierarchy metadata)
    new_file_name: Name for the copied file (auto-generated if empty)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sheet_uuidYes
project_pathNo
new_file_nameNo
new_sheet_nameYes
schematic_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses file-level copying with regenerated UUIDs, page-number allocation, placement of autoplaced fields, re-annotation of the copied symbols in x-then-y order, and a failure mode that writes nothing. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation this is exactly the context an agent needs.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the action, and the remainder is ordered from highest to lowest value detail. The middle paragraph on symbol reference renumbering is dense and partly restates the first sentence, but it is short enough overall to justify its length for a destructive operation.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: side effects on disk, error condition, parameter preconditions, and page/reference allocation semantics. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 compensate, and it does for all five parameters via the Args block (default/omit behavior for schematic_path, auto-generation for new_file_name, hierarchy role for project_path). It stops short of saying where to obtain sheet_uuid (e.g., list_schematic_sheets) or its format.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a hierarchical sheet') and immediately qualifies scope ('copying the child file with new UUIDs'), which distinguishes it from add_hierarchical_sheet/modify_hierarchical_sheet. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit conditional guidance ('Give project_path when the parent is itself a sub-sheet') and states a hard refusal case (source file holding sub-sheets). It does not name alternatives such as add_hierarchical_sheet for creating a fresh sheet, so routing is clear but not fully enumerated.

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