describe_server_capabilitiesReports the LTspice engine, available tool groups, and feature flags so you can verify simulator support before editing schematics or running analyses.
Report the LTspice engine, tool groups, and feature flags.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the subject matter reported (engine, tool groups, feature flags) but says nothing about return shape or how capability data should be interpreted.
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 twelve-word sentence with the payload front-loaded and zero wasted text. Appropriately sized for a no-argument discovery tool.
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?
With no parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description only needs to say what is reported, which it does. A brief note on the granularity of tool groups/feature flags would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is missing.
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 schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty object.
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?
States a specific verb (report) and resource (LTspice engine, tool groups, feature flags), which is more informative than the bare name. It is distinguishable from sibling describe_* tools by being the server/engine-level one, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against describe_edit_capability or describe_schematic_edit_support.
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?
Usage is implied — call it to learn what the server supports — but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given despite several related describe_* siblings that could be confused with it. Minimum viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.