Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

sch_add_label

Destructive

Add a schematic label to a KiCad schematic at specified coordinates, with automatic snapping to the 2.54 mm grid for placement precision.

Instructions

Add a schematic label, 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "x_mm": "<x_mm>",
      "y_mm": "<y_mm>"
    },
    "name": "sch_add_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
rotationNo
snap_to_gridNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true is present, and the description adds the default snapping behavior to the 2.54 mm grid, which is useful context. There is no contradiction with the annotation, but no additional behavioral details such as side effects or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 zero wasted words. It is extremely concise and structurally efficient.

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?

With five parameters, outputschema, and several sibling label tools, the description is too terse. It lacks guidance on label type selection, coordinate system, or interactions with the destructiveHint annotation. An output schema exists, but contextual usage is still incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at snap_to_grid via 'snapping its anchor to the 2.54 mm grid by default,' but fails to explain the required parameters (name, x_mm, y_mm) or rotation. This provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool adds a schematic label, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sch_add_hierarchical_label or sch_add_global_label, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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, or when to set snap_to_grid to false. The description simply states what the tool does without providing contextual usage advice.

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