fritzing-mcp

Fritzing Render

fritzing_render

Render Fritzing sketches to SVG or PNG for visual inspection, then re-render after adjusting positions and wires.

Instructions

Headless-render sketch(es) to SVG (and optionally PNG via ImageMagick).

Writes _.svg/.png next to the target. The first render per session takes ~10 s (parts DB load). Read the PNG to visually inspect the design, then adjust positions/wires and re-render.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "fritzing_render"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`png`	No
`view`	No	bb \| sc \| pcb \| all	all
`target`	Yes	sketch file or directory of sketches
`density`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the file-writing side effect, the <name>_<view> output naming convention, the optional ImageMagick dependency for PNG, and the ~10 s first-render parts-DB load. It omits failure behavior and whether existing files are overwritten.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the side effect and latency warning. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description adds the key operational facts (output location, latency, dependency). Only the density parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 50%. The description explains the PNG option (ImageMagick dependency) and indirectly the view via the <name>_<view> filename, but says nothing about density or accepted values, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb (headless-render) and resource (sketch/es) plus the exact output artifacts (SVG, and optionally PNG). This clearly separates it from GUI-oriented siblings like fritzing_show_sketch or mutation tools like fritzing_move_part.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It describes the intended workflow loop: render, read the PNG to inspect the design, adjust positions/wires, re-render. That gives clear context for when to reach for it, but it never names an alternative sibling or states when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server