Lists available KiCad tool groups—schematic, PCB, sourcing, and others—and reports whether each is loaded, helping you confirm which design capabilities are ready.
List available KiCad tool groups (schematic, pcb, sourcing, ...) and whether each is currently loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; "List" establishes a read-only, non-mutating operation and the description discloses that both availability and current load state are returned. It does not mention ordering, filtering, or any cost/pagination traits, but for a zero-argument read-only listing the surface is small.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the resource and returned information front-loaded; every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and a declared output schema, the description need not explain return values. It supplies the one thing an agent needs to know — what categories exist and that load status accompanies them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior left to compensate for and the description correctly avoids inventing any input semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("List available KiCad tool groups") and adds the useful detail that loaded state is reported per group. It is clearly distinguishable from the load_toolset/unload_toolset siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should list toolsets before choosing load_toolset or unload_toolset, but the description never says when to call it or what to do with the result. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.