Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

sch_add_bus_wire_entry

Destructive

Add a bus wire entry marker at specified coordinates, snapping to the 2.54 mm grid for precise schematic alignment.

Instructions

Add a bus wire entry marker, snapping its anchor to the 2.54 mm grid by default.

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": {
      "x_mm": "<x_mm>",
      "y_mm": "<y_mm>"
    },
    "name": "sch_add_bus_wire_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
directionNoup_right
snap_to_gridNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a behavioral detail ('snapping its anchor to the 2.54 mm grid by default') beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation, and the annotation already signals mutation, so this is sufficient for a simple add operation.

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 sentence with the primary action up front, followed by a relevant default behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

While output schema and annotations exist, the description lacks usage context and parameter semantics. For a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, a one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 for all parameters. It only addresses snap_to_grid (via 'by default') and indirectly x_mm/y_mm (anchor), but completely omits direction semantics. This leaves a significant gap.

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 specific resource ('bus wire entry marker'), distinguishing it from siblings like sch_add_wire, sch_add_bus, and sch_add_label. It also provides a key behavioral detail about grid snapping.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sch_add_wire or sch_add_bus. The description only defines the operation, not the context or 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