KiCad MCP Pro

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kicad_set_project

Destructive

Set the active KiCad project by specifying the project directory and optional paths for PCB, schematic, and output files.

Instructions

Set the active KiCad project directory and file paths.

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>"
    },
    "name": "kicad_set_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pcb_file`	No
`sch_file`	No
`output_dir`	No
`project_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.2Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true indicates a destructive or state-changing operation, but the description adds no context about what exactly happens (e.g., overwriting paths, persisting changes, affecting the current session). It neither contradicts the annotation nor provides additional behavioral detail.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded but lacks essential semantic richness, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a tool that changes the active project, it is critical to state that this establishes the working context for subsequent calls and that paths are optional overrides. The description omits this context, making it incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to use it.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters but only says 'directory and file paths', which vaguely maps to project_dir and pcb_file/sch_file. It does not clarify each parameter's role, especially output_dir, or mention that only project_dir is required.

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 'Set the active KiCad project directory and file paths' clearly identifies a setter action on the active project scope. It distinguishes from creation tools by using 'set active' rather than 'create new', but it does not explicitly differentiate from other project context tools like kicad_get_project_info or project_set_design_intent.

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 this tool should be used, such as before other KiCad operations or when switching projects. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, 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.

Deploy Server