Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

pdn_generate_power_plane

Create a rectangular copper plane on a selected copper layer for a specified net, facilitating power distribution in PCB layouts.

Instructions

Generate a rectangular copper plane on the requested copper layer.

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": {
      "net_name": "<net_name>",
      "layer": "<layer>"
    },
    "name": "pdn_generate_power_plane"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerYes
net_nameYes
clearance_mmNo

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing copper, clearance behavior, DRC implications, or whether it is destructive).

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 fluff. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness; however, conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's impact and requirements (net, clearance). It currently omits these critical details, leaving an agent under-informed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'layer' parameter via 'requested copper layer' but does not explain 'net_name' or 'clearance_mm' at all. This is inadequate for a tool with required parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Generate') and a specific resource ('rectangular copper plane') with a scope ('on the requested copper layer'). It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by specifying the shape and purpose, even though it does not mention the word 'power' explicitly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_add_copper_zone or other PDN tools. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or any recommended 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