Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_svg

Export the board layout to an SVG file with options for layers, precision, and board fit.

Instructions

Export the board to an SVG file.

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_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layersNo
precisionNo
output_pathYes
fit_page_to_boardNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or details about output format (e.g., vector vs raster). A 'read-only' or 'export only' note would help.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits critical information needed for correct invocation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and many sibling export tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to describe return value, parameter behavior, or any exclusions (e.g., only exports current board, not specific layers).

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation of the four parameters (output_path, layers, precision, fit_page_to_board). The description adds zero value beyond the parameter names.

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 that the tool exports the board to an SVG file, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by format, but could be more precise about scope (e.g., entire board or selection).

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No usage context is provided. The description does not specify when to use this over other export tools (e.g., export_pdf, export_dxf), no prerequisites or typical scenarios are mentioned.

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