Add a real KiCad symbol as a component on the PCB without providing coordinates. Specify reference, symbol, unit, value, and footprint to place the part.
Add a component from a real KiCad symbol; no coordinates are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| footprint | No | ||
| reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the fact that it works with a real KiCad symbol and requires no coordinates, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the component is added to the schematic, design changes, permissions needed), error conditions, or the return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place by conveying enough actionable information; it omits critical usage and parameter context. Appropriately sized would require at least a couple of sentences explaining key parameters or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional information about parameter formats, return behavior, or what happens after the component is added. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter information. It does not clarify what 'symbol', 'reference', 'unit', 'value', or 'footprint' mean or how they should be formatted. The agent gets no help beyond the raw schema, which is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'a real KiCad symbol', and explicitly notes that no coordinates are required, which distinguishes it from any coordinate-requiring addition flows. It differentiates from sibling tools like find_symbol (search) and connect_pins (wiring) by implying a placement-free symbol import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'no coordinates are required' which hints at a use case (adding without positioning), but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend when to prefer another tool. The sibling list includes many tools, but none are clearly positioned as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.