Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

export_3d_render

Destructive

Generate a 3D render of a PCB board as a PNG file, with adjustable side and zoom for detailed viewing.

Instructions

Render the board to a PNG image.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_3d_render"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideNotop
zoomNo
output_fileNorender.png

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description does not explain what makes this operation destructive (e.g., overwriting the output file). It also doesn't mention the 3D nature or any side effects, so it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too sparse for a tool with multiple parameters and a destructive hint. It under-specifies rather than being efficiently detailed, making it more undersized than concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the three parameters and the destructive annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain side options, zoom behavior, output file handling, or the fact that this is a 3D render. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has three parameters (side, zoom, output_file) but the description provides no explanation of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it simply says 'Render the board to a PNG image,' offering no insight into parameter meaning or usage.

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 action (render) and the output format (PNG image), which distinguishes it from other export tools like export_svg or export_dxf. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a 3D render, relying on the tool name for that context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other export or rendering tools. No alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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