fritzing-mcp

Fritzing Set Properties

fritzing_set_properties

Set instance properties (name=value pairs) for a component in a Fritzing sketch file. Specify file, component reference, and properties to update.

Instructions

Set instance properties (name=value pairs).

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "props": "<props>"
    },
    "name": "fritzing_set_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes
`file`	Yes
`props`	Yes	properties to set, e.g. {'resistance': '10k'}

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation with name=value pairs, but it does not disclose whether existing properties are overwritten, whether the file is modified, required permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a write tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single fragment is terse with no waste and is front-loaded with the verb, but for a three-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It provides no structure beyond the bare action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 33% schema coverage, and a nested props object, the description leaves major gaps: file and ref semantics, when to use the tool, and overwrite behavior are all missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: only the props parameter has a description. The description adds 'name=value pairs' but does not explain the file parameter, the ref parameter, or expected property keys beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('instance properties') and specifies the value format ('name=value pairs'). It is clear what the operation does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as fritzing_place_part or fritzing_create_part, and it leaves 'instance' undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as a valid file or ref, and no context about when setting properties is appropriate. It only states the operation.

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

Deploy Server