Skip to main content
Glama
furkanmeclis

smith-charts-mcp

by furkanmeclis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Design L-section matching networks

design_l_match
Read-onlyIdempotent

Synthesize two-element L-network matches between a load and source at one frequency. Get exact L/C values, filter type, DC behavior, VSWR, and bandwidth.

Instructions

Synthesize every two-element lumped L-network (series/shunt L and C) that matches a load to a source at one frequency. Handles complex loads and complex sources (conjugate match). Returns 2–4 solutions with exact component values, low-pass/high-pass classification, DC-block/DC-feed behaviour, verified input impedance and VSWR, matched bandwidth, and optional rounding to standard E12/E24/E96 values. Elements are listed load → source and can be passed directly to analyze_circuit or render_smith_chart. Use for 'match 25-j15 Ω to 50 Ω at 2.4 GHz'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
z0NoReference (system) characteristic impedance Z0 in Ω. Default 50.
loadYesThe load (termination) at the far end of the circuit. Give exactly one of: z, gamma, table, or a 1-port Touchstone (.s1p) via touchstone_path / touchstone_content (e.g. a measured antenna).
sourceNoSource impedance (default = z0, purely resistive). Complex sources are conjugately matched.
languageNoLanguage of the human-readable summary: 'en' (English) or 'tr' (Türkçe). Defaults to the server setting.
frequencyYesFrequency. Number in SI base units or engineering string, e.g. 2.4e9, '2.4GHz', '915 MHz'
preferenceNoOrder solutions by this preference (ties broken by bandwidth). Default: widest bandwidth first.
bandwidth_vswrNoVSWR limit used to report the matched bandwidth of each solution (default 2 ≈ 9.5 dB return loss).
snap_to_seriesNoAlso round L/C values to this standard E-series and report the resulting match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, deterministic read. Description adds substantive context beyond annotations: returns 2-4 solutions with exact values, classifications, verified input impedance, matched bandwidth, and optional E-series rounding. It doesn't mention whether results are cached or whether the tool is computationally expensive, but the information given is rich.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add useful detail on returns, element ordering, and usage. Slightly dense but every sentence contributes; no obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a synthesis tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, what it returns (2-4 solutions with component values, classifications, VSWR, bandwidth, optional rounding), element ordering, and integration with sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% (>80%), so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions handling complex loads/sources and optional rounding but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb 'Synthesize' + resource 'two-element lumped L-network' + explicit constraint 'matches a load to a source at one frequency.' Differentiates from siblings design_pi_t_match and design_stub_match by naming the network topology and element count.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an example use case ('match 25-j15 Ω to 50 Ω at 2.4 GHz') and mentions that elements can be passed to analyze_circuit or render_smith_chart. However, no explicit guidance on when to prefer L-section over pi/T or stub matching, and no stated exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools