Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Schematic

create_schematic

Creates an empty LTspice schematic file at a specified path, providing a starting point for circuit editing and simulation.

Instructions

Create an empty schematic.

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>"
    },
    "name": "create_schematic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'empty' (no components are populated), but omits what happens if the path already exists, whether creation overwrites, and what the call returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single four-word sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations explaining the result, the description should at least indicate what is returned (path, handle) and whether re-invocation fails. For a non-idempotent creation tool with an undocumented required path parameter, the description is too thin.

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 50%: workspace_root is documented in the schema, but schematic_path (the required parameter) has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate with path format, extension, or relative-vs-absolute semantics, leaving the most important parameter under-specified.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create an empty schematic'), and the word 'empty' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling create_starter_schematic. However, it does not name or contrast with that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as create_starter_schematic or save_schematic_as. The agent gets no signal about which creation tool to pick or what preconditions (existing file, workspace) apply.

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