add_component_from_asyPlace a symbol from a workspace .asy file into an LTspice schematic by setting its reference, value, coordinates, and rotation.
Place a symbol using the file name of an .asy in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| asy_path | Yes | ||
| 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 declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description doesn't add behavioral context such as what gets created, whether existing components are affected, or what happens on duplicate reference. For an 8-param mutation, this is thin.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing semantics.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and near-zero schema descriptions. The description is far too sparse to tell an agent how to call this correctly, especially versus sibling component-adding tools.
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%, so the schema documents one optional param (workspace_root) and leaves seven undocumented. The description mentions only the .asy filename, failing to explain reference, schematic_path, x/y, rotation, or value. It does not compensate for the low coverage.
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?
The description says it places a symbol using an .asy filename, which is a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like add_component, add_component_symbol_drawing, or add_library_component. The purpose is vague relative to the crowded add_component family.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus add_component or add_library_component, no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.