Skip to main content
Glama
ProductOfAmerica

mcp-server-kicad

remove_junction

Destructive

Delete a junction at given coordinates in a KiCad schematic, merging or disconnecting wires and buses as KiCad's delete operation does.

Instructions

Remove a junction at the given coordinates, as KiCad's delete removes one.

The junction within 0.1 mm goes, with any other at exactly its point. Then, as KiCad's
DeleteJunction does (bus-wire-junction.cpp:115-185 at 9.0.8), of the wires and buses
ending there each parallel pair is made one, or one of two identical lines goes, so
whatever met only at the junction is disconnected: a T loses its stem, a crossing becomes
two wires that do not join. Wires that merely meet there at an angle stay joined. Where a
bus entry ends at the point nothing is merged, since kicad-cli 9 cuts a wire at a bus entry
end inside it. The result names each merge.

Args:
    x: X position
    y: Y position
    schematic_path: Path to .kicad_sch file. Optional; omit to use the configured default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
schematic_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it details exactly what is destroyed (parallel pairs merged, T loses its stem, a crossing becomes two disconnected wires), what survives (angled meetings stay joined), and the bus-entry exception. This is unusually rich disclosure of consequence and reversibility.

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 core action and consequence, and each sentence earns its place by adding behavioral detail. The embedded source reference (bus-wire-junction.cpp:115-185 at 9.0.8) is precise but slightly niche overhead for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes 'The result names each merge'. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and documents all three parameters. It clarifies schematic_path is optional and defaults to the configured file, which adds genuine meaning; x/y are described only as positions, which is acceptable but minimal.

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 ('Remove a junction at the given coordinates') and sandboxes it against KiCad semantics. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like remove_wire, remove_label, or remove_no_connect without opening any schema.

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?

The behavior narrative implies when the operation matches KiCad's delete, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives such as remove_wire for actual wires. Usage is inferable from the described effects rather than stated.

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