Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_3d

Export the board's 3D model as a STEP file for mechanical CAD integration.

Instructions

Export the 3D STEP model of the board.

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_3d"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, if it overwrites existing files, or any side effects. The description is too brief to be transparent.

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 extremely concise—one sentence. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail. It could include a brief sentence about output without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (success/failure), that it writes to a file, or any error conditions. Given the parameter count and missing output schema, more context is needed.

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?

The only parameter, output_path, has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description adds no meaning, such as expected format, file extension, or whether absolute/relative paths are allowed.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource '3D STEP model of the board', which distinguishes it from sibling export tools that target other formats (e.g., Gerbers, DXF). However, it does not explicitly mention that the export writes to a file, which could be inferred from the parameter.

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 other export tools or whether any prerequisites (e.g., saving the board) are required. The agent receives no direction for selection.

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