kicad_ercRun electrical rules check on a KiCad .kicad_sch file and return the report to verify schematic connectivity and design rules.
Run KiCad Electrical Rules Checker on a .kicad_sch file. Returns the report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outdir | No | ||
| schematic | 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, the description carries the full burden. 'Run ... Checker ... Returns the report' implies a read-only diagnostic, which is useful, but it says nothing about the outdir parameter writing files, permissions, or whether the check has side effects. Partial disclosure only.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the return behavior follows. The second sentence is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but the definition is tight overall.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained in depth. For a simple two-parameter check tool the purpose is covered, but the unexplained outdir parameter and the absence of any read-only/side-effect statement leave a real gap.
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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'schematic' is the path to the target file or what 'outdir' controls (an output directory), leaving both parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (Run) and resource (KiCad Electrical Rules Checker on a .kicad_sch file), and names the artifact it operates on. It implicitly distinguishes itself from kicad_drc by specifying the schematic file type, but does not explicitly contrast the two sibling checkers.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit pointer to kicad_drc as the alternative for PCB checks. The .kicad_sch target implies scope but the agent must infer that DRC is the sibling for layout files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.