kicad_list_symbolsSearch KiCad symbol libraries by query and return matching 'Library:SymbolName' paths, so you can find the right symbol before placing it in a schematic.
Search KiCad symbol libraries. Query matches 'Library:SymbolName' paths.
Returns up to limit lib_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the result shape ('returns up to `limit` lib_ids'), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or whether results are exhaustive or truncated beyond the limit. Modest but not rich behavioral context.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result shape. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly terse and the second sentence is a fragment.
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 return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers both parameters and the search semantics. The main gap is the absence of usage routing against siblings, which for a simple two-param read tool is acceptable.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `query` matches 'Library:SymbolName' paths and that `limit` caps the number of returned lib_ids. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their bare types, though the default limit behavior is unstated.
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 (search/list) and resource (KiCad symbol libraries), and distinguishes itself from the sibling kicad_list_footprints by virtue of the resource noun. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus sibling tools like kicad_list_footprints or kicad_sch_add_symbol. The path-matching note hints at how to query, but there is no when/when-not guidance or prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.