add_modelAdd a SPICE .model directive to an LTspice schematic by specifying its path and model text, enabling custom device models for simulation.
Add a .model directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_text | 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 readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond this — no mention of validation, what happens on duplicate directives, permissions, or side effects on the schematic.
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 waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing beyond the minimum is conveyed.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description omits what a .model directive is, where it is inserted, and what success or failure looks like. This is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 coverage is low (33%), with model_text and schematic_path carrying no descriptions, yet the description supplies no meaning for any parameter. Names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (add) and resource (.model directive), which is meaningful in a SPICE context. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling set_element_model, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 choose this over alternatives such as set_element_model, resolve_model_libraries, or add_library_include, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.