Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Describe Reference Circuit Recipe

describe_reference_circuit_recipe
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a reference circuit recipe by recipe_id, so an assistant can understand and reuse the circuit in LTspice workflows.

Instructions

Describe one reference circuit.

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>"
    },
    "name": "describe_reference_circuit_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipe_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what 'describe' returns, whether the recipe must exist, or what happens for an unknown recipe_id.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler and nothing buried, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, which caps the score.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at least say what is returned and how to source the recipe_id. Neither is present, leaving the definition too thin to guide a correct call.

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 0% for the single required recipe_id parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never explains what a recipe_id is, where to obtain one, or its format. The one-parameter description therefore adds no semantic value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Describe one reference circuit'), but it reads as a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what describing yields. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_reference_circuit_recipes or materialize_reference_circuit, so an agent gets only a minimal sense of purpose.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_reference_circuit_recipes (to enumerate recipes) or materialize_recipe (to instantiate one). No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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