Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_polygon

Add a graphic polygon to a PCB board by defining vertex points in millimeters, layer, and fill settings.

Instructions

Add a graphic polygon to the board.

points_mm should be a list like [{"x_mm": 0, "y_mm": 0}, ...]

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": {
      "points_mm": "<points_mm>",
      "layer_name": "<layer_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_polygon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filledNo
width_mmNo
points_mmYes
layer_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only provides a format example for points_mm. It does not disclose defaults (filled, width), behavior on invalid input, or whether the polygon is automatically closed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with a clear code example. No wasted words, though a structured list could improve scannability.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only one parameter's format and omits important behavioral and usage context.

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 description must compensate. It only explains points_mm format, leaving width_mm, filled, and layer_name unexplained. Partial value but significant gaps.

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 graphic polygon, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_polygon_copper_zone by qualifying 'graphic', but could be more explicit about the layer 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_polygon_copper_zone or other shape tools. No prerequisites or context provided.

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