Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pcb_place_decoupling_caps

Arrange decoupling capacitors in a tight row next to a target IC footprint to ensure proper power filtering.

Instructions

Move capacitor footprints into a tight row near a target IC footprint.

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": {
      "ic_ref": "<ic_ref>",
      "cap_refs": "<cap_refs>"
    },
    "name": "pcb_place_decoupling_caps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideNosame
ic_refYes
grid_mmNo
cap_refsYes
max_distance_mmNo
allow_open_boardNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, reversibility, how the placement is determined, or how parameters like side or allow_open_board affect the outcome.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the operation.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, empty annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not cover the placement algorithm, constraints, or behavior for optional parameters.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain any of them. It only implies ic_ref and cap_refs, leaving side, grid_mm, max_distance_mm, and allow_open_board without meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and identifies the resource ('capacitor footprints') and the target placement ('tight row near a target IC footprint'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that recommend or check decoupling placement.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative decoupling-related tools such as pdn_recommend_decoupling_caps or emc_check_decoupling_placement. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., caps selected, board loaded) or mention any exclusions.

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