Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_selection_screenshot

Capture a screenshot of only the selected PCB items and return it as a base64 PNG image.

Instructions

Take a visual screenshot of only the selected items and return as base64 PNG.

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": "get_selection_screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
width_pxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose important details such as whether a selection must exist, what happens if no selection, which layers are captured, or the behavior of the width_px parameter. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but omits essential details. While there is no wasted text, the structure does not front-load critical information like parameter behavior or prerequisites.

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 low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify error conditions (e.g., no selection), the effect of width_px, or any other contextual details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (width_px) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what width_px controls (e.g., image width, canvas width). Schema title 'Width Px' is insufficient, and the description fails to add any semantic value.

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 states the tool takes a visual screenshot of selected items and returns a base64 PNG. It explicitly specifies 'only the selected items', distinguishing it from board-level screenshots like get_board_screenshot.

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?

The description implies usage for capturing only selected items as opposed to full board screenshots, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_board_screenshot or get_selection. No when-not guidance is 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