add_componentPlace a primitive component in an LTspice schematic by specifying its kind, reference, and position. Use it to add resistors, capacitors, and other primitives to .asc files.
Place a primitive component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| value | No | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| schematic_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no word on the coordinate system, whether placement auto-routes or renumbers references, or what happens on a duplicate reference.
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 no filler, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than disciplined concision for an 8-parameter mutation tool.
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?
For a write operation with 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently construct a call from this description plus the bare schema.
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 only 13% (just workspace_root), so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about x/y units or coordinate origin, allowed 'kind' values, rotation format, value semantics, or the schematic_path requirement, leaving 7 of 8 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 and resource ('place' + 'primitive component'), and 'primitive' hints it is for built-in parts rather than library parts. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as add_library_component, add_component_from_asy, or add_component_symbol_drawing, so the agent must guess which adder applies.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance at all. Given that ~10 sibling tools also add schematic elements, this absence is a real selection hazard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.