Scaffold a new KiCad project with a .kicad_pro file and blank schematic and PCB files, so you can start board design from a consistent project structure.
Scaffold a new KiCad project: .kicad_pro, blank .kicad_sch, blank .kicad_pcb.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| layers | No | ||
| width_mm | No | ||
| directory | Yes | ||
| height_mm | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially carried by structured data. The description adds that files are 'blank,' which is useful, but it fails to connect the destructive hint to the overwrite parameter (i.e., that overwrite=true destroys existing files).
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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and its outputs with zero filler. Efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with six parameters.
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?
An output schema covers return values, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and a destructive operation, the description does not do enough: it omits the meaning of overwrite, layers, and dimensions, and gives no usage guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameter is explained in the description. The mention of '.kicad_pcb' hints that layers/width_mm/height_mm configure the board, but directory, name, and especially overwrite remain undocumented.
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 'scaffold' plus resource 'new KiCad project' and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (.kicad_pro, .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb). Clear enough to distinguish creating a new project from project_open, though it never names that sibling.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisites are given. It doesn't state the relationship to project_open (open existing vs create new) or when overwrite should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.