add_junctionSplit an LTspice schematic wire at given x,y coordinates to create an electrical junction for connected nets.
Split a wire so a coordinate becomes a junction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description doesn't disclose what happens if a junction already exists at that point, whether it requires an existing wire, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 waste. Front-loaded verb and purpose, though very terse.
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?
A 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage. The description doesn't explain coordinate semantics, preconditions (existing wire), or result. This is inadequate for correct invocation without trial and error.
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 25% – only workspace_root is described. The description doesn't explain x/y (coordinate units? grid? relative to what?), schematic_path, or how x/y relate to wire geometry. Since the schema is mostly bare, the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 ('split') and resource ('a wire', 'junction') with the coordinate-based mechanism. It's distinguishable from add_wire and remove_junction by the junction concept, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned. An agent must infer that this is for creating electrical junction points where wires cross, vs using add_wire or remove_junction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.