Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Instruction

add_instruction

Add SPICE directives or comments to an LTspice .asc schematic to configure simulations or document circuit behavior.

Instructions

Add a SPICE directive or a comment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "schematic_path": "<schematic_path>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_instruction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
textYes
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent local mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the schematic file is modified, that repeated calls append duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or where the addition lands.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, so it only meets the minimum bar.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to know what gets modified, how x/y are used, or what happens on repeat calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only workspace_root is documented), so the description is expected to compensate and largely fails. It weakly implies 'text' holds the directive/comment content, but says nothing about schematic_path, x, or y (placement), leaving four parameters undocumented in both places.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb ('Add') and two resource types ('SPICE directive or a comment'), so the basic action is legible. However, it never defines what an 'instruction' is or how directive-vs-comment differs, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like add_net_label, add_wire, or remove_instruction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an open/valid schematic), and no routing to alternatives such as remove_instruction or the other add_* tools. The agent must infer all of this 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools