Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

sch_add_no_connect

Destructive

Place a no-connect marker on a schematic at specified coordinates, with default snapping to the 2.54 mm grid for precise alignment.

Instructions

Add a no-connect marker, snapping it 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_no_connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x_mmYes
y_mmYes
snap_to_gridNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the marker snaps to the 2.54 mm grid by default, which goes beyond the annotations. However, the destructiveHint is true and the description does not explain what destructive effect may occur, leaving the annotation's implications unaddressed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes one key behavioral default. No filler or redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. However, parameter semantics are missing, and the destructiveHint annotation is not contextualized. The description gives a clear one-line purpose but leaves users to infer coordinate semantics and operational effects.

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% and the description does not compensate. The parameters x_mm, y_mm, and snap_to_grid are only named in the schema; their meaning, coordinate system, and relationship to grid snapping are not explained in the description.

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 identifies the action ('Add') and the specific resource ('no-connect marker'), which distinguishes it from sibling schematic-add tools like sch_add_symbol or sch_add_wire. The mention of default grid snapping adds a specific behavioral detail that further clarifies purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for adding no-connect markers in a schematic, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which alternative tools might be preferable in other situations.

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