KiCad MCP Server

by Seeed-Studio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_netlist_nets

Extracts nets from a KiCad netlist XML file, with optional regex filtering to refine net names.

Instructions

Get all nets from netlist file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "netlist_path": "<netlist_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_netlist_nets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`netlist_path`	Yes	Path to .xml netlist file
`filter_pattern`	No	Optional regex pattern to filter net names

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention read-only nature, error handling, performance implications, or behavior of the optional filter pattern.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, balancing conciseness poorly against completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the tool's role in the design flow (e.g., it reads a netlist file but doesn't clarify file format expectations or relationship to other analysis tools). This incompleteness may hinder proper tool selection.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints for 'netlist_path' or 'filter_pattern', failing to justify its existence beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'nets from netlist file,' making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_schematic_nets' or 'analyze_hierarchical_nets', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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