Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server

KiCad MCP Server

by brovk2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_tracks_in_rect

Remove tracks inside a rectangular bounding box, optionally filtered by layer name.

Instructions

Remove all tracks within a bounding box, optionally filtered by layer name.

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": {
      "x1_mm": "<x1_mm>",
      "y1_mm": "<y1_mm>",
      "x2_mm": "<x2_mm>",
      "y2_mm": "<y2_mm>"
    },
    "name": "remove_tracks_in_rect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x1_mmYes
x2_mmYes
y1_mmYes
y2_mmYes
layer_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'remove' which is destructive, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as undo capability, coordinate system details, or what happens to partially overlapping tracks. It is minimally transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. Every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies the bounding box and optional layer filter, but omits details like coordinate ordering (which point is which) and interpretation of 'within' (fully or partially inside). Additional context would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'bounding box' and 'optionally filtered by layer name'. It does not explain the meaning of individual parameters (e.g., which corner is x1 vs x2, or the coordinate system), leaving ambiguity.

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 action (remove all tracks) and the geometric constraint (within a bounding box), with an optional filter by layer name. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_track' which likely handles single tracks.

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 use for bulk removal by region, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., 'remove_track') or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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