Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lock_shape

Lock or unlock a shape in a PCB design by providing its shape ID and desired lock state.

Instructions

Lock or unlock a shape.

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": {
      "shape_id": "<shape_id>",
      "locked": "<locked>"
    },
    "name": "lock_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lockedYes
shape_idYes

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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the toggle action but omits critical details such as whether locking is persistent, affects visibility, or requires special permissions. The tool likely mutates state, but this is not confirmed.

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 short sentence), but it lacks necessary detail. While brevity is valued, here it comes at the expense of clarity and completeness, leaving important questions unanswered.

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 the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. For a simple mutation tool with two parameters, it should at least clarify the locking behavior and parameter meanings to guide correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not elaborate on the parameters: 'shape_id' and 'locked' remain minimally documented. The boolean 'locked' could imply true for lock and false for unlock, but this is not explicitly stated, and the meaning of 'lock' for a shape is unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Lock or unlock a shape' clearly identifies the action and resource, which distinguishes it from lock tools for other entities like footprints or tracks. However, it fails to define what 'locking' entails (e.g., whether it prevents editing or selection), leaving ambiguity.

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. Given the many sibling lock tools (e.g., lock_footprint, lock_track), the description should specify that this is for shapes only, but it does not. There is also no explanation of prerequisites or postconditions.

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