KiCad MCP Pro

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pcb_set_board_outline

Destructive

Define a rectangular PCB board outline on the Edge.Cuts layer by specifying width, height, and optional origin coordinates.

Instructions

Draw a rectangular board outline on Edge.Cuts.

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": {
      "width_mm": "<width_mm>",
      "height_mm": "<height_mm>"
    },
    "name": "pcb_set_board_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`width_mm`	Yes
`height_mm`	Yes
`origin_x_mm`	No
`origin_y_mm`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.2Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the destructive nature, but the description adds no behavioral context, such as whether the existing outline is replaced or how the origin is interpreted. It provides little beyond what the annotation already states.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 destructive operation with four parameters, the description is minimal. It does not cover coordinate system, default behavior, or parameter semantics. The description is too incomplete to fully support correct invocation.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain any of the parameters. While width and height are somewhat inferable from the tool name, origin_x_mm and origin_y_mm are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without essential information.

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 tool draws a rectangular board outline on the Edge.Cuts layer. The verb 'Draw' and the specific resource 'rectangular board outline on Edge.Cuts' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from other PCB shape tools like pcb_add_rectangle.

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, such as pcb_add_rectangle or other PCB drawing tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server