Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

sch_add_global_label

Destructive

Add a global label to a schematic at specified coordinates, preserving the requested shape and rotation.

Instructions

Add a global label, preserving the requested shape and rotation.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "x_mm": "<x_mm>",
      "y_mm": "<y_mm>"
    },
    "name": "sch_add_global_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
shapeNobidirectional
rotationNo
snap_to_gridNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the behavioral note that the requested shape and rotation are preserved, which is useful beyond the annotation's destructiveHint. However, it doesn't clarify what destructive operations might occur or whether existing labels are overwritten. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single 12-word sentence, extremely concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and minimal sibling differentiation, making it more terse than effective.

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 an output schema, the description fails to explain what a global label is, when it should be used, or how it differs from other label types. The context of two sibling label tools demands more detail for correct tool selection.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. It only mentions shape and rotation, leaving text, x_mm, y_mm, and snap_to_grid semantically unexplained. While coordinates are self-explanatory, the lack of any mention of text or snapping behavior is a gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action (add) and the resource (a global label), and adds a specific detail about preserving shape and rotation. It distinguishes from siblings like sch_add_label and sch_add_hierarchical_label by the 'global' qualifier, though it doesn't explain what global means in this context.

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 like sch_add_label or sch_add_hierarchical_label. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, 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