Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pcb_get_footprints

Read-onlyIdempotent

List PCB footprints with pagination and optional layer filter for targeted board inspection.

Instructions

List board footprints.

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": "pcb_get_footprints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo
filter_layerNo

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?

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not state what data is returned, whether it lists all footprints, or how `filter_layer` affects results.

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?

Three words is extremely concise and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient structure. It lacks any additional context that would help the agent.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 3 undocumented parameters and no parameter descriptions. The description leaves ambiguity about what 'board footprints' includes and how pagination or filtering works, making it barely adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no parameter information. `page`, `page_size`, and `filter_layer` are left entirely to the reader's inference.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'board footprints', clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling `lib_list_footprints` by specifying board rather than library, but it could be more explicit about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `lib_list_footprints`, `pcb_get_pads`, or `pcb_get_footprint_layers`. The description does not mention filtering or pagination usage.

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