Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pcb_add_tracks_bulk

Destructive

Add multiple PCB tracks in a single operation. Specify start and end coordinates, layer, net, and width for each track to efficiently route connections in KiCad.

Instructions

Add multiple tracks in a single operation.

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": {
      "tracks": "<tracks>"
    },
    "name": "pcb_add_tracks_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tracksYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals that the operation modifies the design. The description adds the 'single operation' aspect, suggesting atomicity, but provides no further behavioral context such as validation behavior, defaults, or effect on existing tracks. This is minimal extra value beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word adds value, though it is extremely terse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the schema provides detailed field descriptions and an output schema exists, the description can rely on that, but it still misses explicit guidance on when to use bulk vs. single add, and does not mention default layer/width or coordinate limits. It is minimally viable but has noticeable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not discuss the 'tracks' parameter or the required fields (x1, y1, x2, y2) at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate or add meaning to the parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's inline descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('multiple tracks'), and the phrase 'in a single operation' distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool pcb_add_track, which adds one track at a time. The verb and scope are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for batch operations but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over pcb_add_track or route_single_track. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving this to inference from the tool name and sibling context.

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