Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

validate_footprints_vs_schematic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare PCB footprint references against schematic symbol references to catch mismatches and ensure design consistency.

Instructions

Compare PCB footprint references against the schematic symbol references.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_footprints_vs_schematic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool conveys safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the action itself, such as what constitutes a mismatch or how results are returned. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotation baseline.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and the objects being compared.

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?

While the purpose is clear and output schema likely documents return values, the description omits any context about when to run this check, what 'references' means in practice, or how it differs from sibling validation tools. For a zero-parameter validation tool, this is adequate but minimal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the two resources: PCB footprint references and schematic symbol references. This clearly distinguishes it from broader validation tools like validate_design or run_drc.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_drc, validate_design, or pcb_sync_from_schematic. The description only states what it does without contextual cues 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