fritzing-mcp

Fritzing Wire

fritzing_wire

Connect two component pins in a Fritzing .fzz sketch by specifying file and connector refs to create the electrical connection.

Instructions

Wire two part connectors together (creates the electrical ).

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_a": "<ref_a>",
      "ref_b": "<ref_b>"
    },
    "name": "fritzing_wire"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`view`	No	bb \| sc \| pcb \| all	bb
`color`	No	hex color, e.g. '#ff0000'
`ref_a`	Yes	'ref.connectorId', e.g. 'r1.connector1'
`ref_b`	Yes	'ref.connectorId'

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 does disclose the key behavioral fact that this creates a persistent electrical <connect> element, implying a sketch mutation, but says nothing about whether connectors must already exist, what happens on duplicate wiring, or how failures are reported.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with the noun (connectors) and effect (<connect>) front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 5 parameters, the description omits preconditions (e.g. parts must already be placed) and side effects, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents the required 'ref.connectorId' format for ref_a/ref_b and the view/color options. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb ('wire') and resource ('two part connectors'), plus it clarifies the output is an electrical <connect> element. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like fritzing_place_part or fritzing_move_part, though it never names an alternative to route selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fritzing_part_connectors (which an agent would likely need first to discover valid connector ids). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server