Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pcb_add_text

Destructive

Place custom text on a PCB at exact coordinates, configuring layer, font size, rotation, and bold/italic styling.

Instructions

Add board text.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "x_mm": "<x_mm>",
      "y_mm": "<y_mm>"
    },
    "name": "pcb_add_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boldNo
textYes
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
layerNoF_SilkS
italicNo
size_mmNo
rotation_degNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation destructiveHint=true already implies. It does not explain potential overwrites, board modification effects, or any constraints on layer or placement. No additional transparency is provided.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of providing little value, so it is not an efficient balance of brevity and information.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no schema descriptions, and a destructive hint), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of side effects, return values, or usage context, leaving most important details absent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the 8 parameters (text, coordinates, size, layer, etc.), leaving the agent to guess at their meanings and 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 'Add board text' clearly names the action (add) and resource (board text), distinguishing it from sibling add operations like tracks, vias, and zones. However, it does not specify which layer or type of text, relying on schema defaults for that detail.

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 alternatives like pcb_add_barcode or pcb_add_track. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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