describe_live_gui_supportCheck whether LTspice can launch a live GUI session, so assistants can run simulations and inspect schematics interactively.
Describe the GUI launch support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as whether it reveals optional GUI modes, prerequisites, or platform requirements, and does not mention the zero-argument nature or return shape.
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 short sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized but under-front-loaded in terms of substance, not length.
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 capability-discovery tool with no output schema, the description should say what the caller learns (which GUI launch modes/commands are supported) and when to call it. As written, an agent has almost nothing to distinguish this from other describe_* tools.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters and does not mislead.
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?
Restates the name almost verbatim ('describe ... GUI launch support' vs 'Describe Live Gui Support'). It does identify the resource (GUI launch support), but gives no detail on what the description contains or how it differs from siblings like describe_server_capabilities or describe_edit_capability.
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 can only infer that it is a capability-discovery call from the verb 'describe'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.