Add a track segment to the PCB board by specifying start and end coordinates, width, layer, and net.
Create a track segment on the board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start_x | Yes | ||
| start_y | Yes | ||
| end_x | Yes | ||
| end_y | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| layer | No | F.Cu | |
| net | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether it modifies an existing board), permissions, or output format. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is good, the tool has 7 parameters and a complex domain, so more information is warranted.
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 the 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no explanation of the output, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. Agents cannot infer the coordinate system, layer naming conventions, or the role of the net parameter without additional context.
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 it creates a track segment, which is a specific resource on a PCB board. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_line, making the purpose slightly ambiguous for agents unfamiliar with PCB terminology.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_line, create_arc). The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daedalus/mcp-kicad'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server