Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Describe Schematic Layout Spec

describe_schematic_layout_spec
Read-onlyIdempotent

Describe built-in LTspice schematic layout specifications, optionally by name, to help assistants understand layout options before editing or running simulations.

Instructions

Describe a built-in layout spec.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "describe_schematic_layout_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spec_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond 'built-in', which only vaguely hints that the specs are predefined rather than user-supplied.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it does not earn more than a middling 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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of information about this tool, yet it says nothing about what the spec description returns or how to select a spec. For a discovery tool this leaves the agent under-equipped.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions spec_name. The word 'built-in' weakly implies the parameter names a predefined spec, yet there is no mention of valid values, whether it is optional, or what happens if omitted.

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 'Describe a built-in layout spec' essentially restates the tool name (describe_schematic_layout_spec) with no added specificity. It gives a verb and resource but no scope, no indication of what a 'spec' contains, and no differentiation from the sibling apply_schematic_layout_spec.

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 alternatives such as apply_schematic_layout_spec or describe_schematic_edit_support. Usage is only faintly implied by the verb 'describe', leaving the agent to infer the context.

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