Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Net Label

add_net_label

Add a named net label at specified coordinates in an LTspice .asc schematic to define node connectivity for simulation.

Instructions

Add a net label.

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>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_net_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
nameYes
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive but non-idempotent mutation. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of what gets modified in the schematic, whether the label requires an existing wire/net, or how duplicates are handled.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No information beyond the title is conveyed, so the sentence does not earn its place as documentation.

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

Completeness1/5

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 no output schema and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for supplying correct coordinates, a valid schematic path, or a meaningful net name.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%: just one of five parameters (workspace_root) is documented in the schema, and the description supplies no meaning for x, y, name, or schematic_path. Coordinate units and coordinate space for x/y are entirely unexplained.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Add a net label.' merely restates the tool name and title with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this from siblings like add_wire, add_junction, or remove_net_label, nor does it state what a net label is or where it is placed.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as remove_net_label or add_wire. An agent must infer entirely from the name when this tool is appropriate.

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