kicad_pcb_add_trackDraw PCB track segments through specified coordinate points on a chosen layer, with options for net, width, and routing polylines in KiCad layouts.
Add a polyline of track segments through points [[x,y], ...] on the PCB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| layer | No | F.Cu | |
| width | No | ||
| points | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. 'Add' implies a mutation, but it doesn't say whether changes are written to disk, what units width uses, whether the track must connect to pads, or what happens when net/layer/width default. Only the points format is described.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that earns its place by documenting the points format. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
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 needn't be explained, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin — units, defaults, persistence, and net/layer meaning are all missing.
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; it explains only the points array structure. The four remaining parameters (path, net, layer, width) get no semantics — critically, no unit for width and no meaning for net's integer default of 0, which an agent cannot guess.
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 and resource ('Add a polyline of track segments') and clarifies what 'points' means as [[x,y], ...]. It does not distinguish itself from the schematic counterpart kicad_sch_add_wire or clarify the PCB vs schematic context beyond the tool name, but the core action 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 indication of when to use this versus kicad_sch_add_wire, kicad_pcb_assign_net, or kicad_pcb_add_footprint, and no prerequisites (e.g., must a footprint/net exist first, must the file be loaded). Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.