Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lock_text

Lock or unlock a text item in a PCB layout to prevent accidental modifications or allow editing.

Instructions

Lock or unlock a text or text box item.

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": {
      "text_id": "<text_id>",
      "locked": "<locked>"
    },
    "name": "lock_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lockedYes
text_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain the effect of locking/unlocking, whether it is reversible, any permissions needed, or side effects. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond the action.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly longer to include key behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It lacks explanation of the locking concept in the domain, error conditions, or what happens after the action. For an AI agent, this minimalism is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 clarifies that the text_id refers to a 'text or text box item', which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain the boolean 'locked' parameter beyond the obvious lock/unlock implication, nor does it describe the format of text_id.

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 verb 'Lock or unlock' and the resource 'text or text box item', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling lock tools for other resources like dimensions, footprints, etc. The resource is named directly, providing unambiguous purpose.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description is purely denotative without contextual usage advice.

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