Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Export Fft Spectrum

export_fft_spectrum

Export FFT magnitude data from an LTspice raw waveform signal to CSV for frequency-domain analysis.

Instructions

Write an FFT magnitude CSV.

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": {
      "raw_path": "<raw_path>",
      "signal": "<signal>"
    },
    "name": "export_fft_spectrum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signalYes
raw_pathYes
output_pathNo
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds only that the output is a CSV of FFT magnitude, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what happens to an existing output_path.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its extreme brevity leaves important structure and detail absent rather than making it optimal for a 4-parameter export tool.

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 four-parameter file-export tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It lacks input semantics, overwrite behavior, and enough context to distinguish it from the numerous other export siblings.

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 only 25%, with just workspace_root documented, so the description must compensate for the undocumented signal, raw_path, and output_path parameters. It provides no parameter-level meaning at all, leaving key distinctions such as raw input versus CSV destination unclear.

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: 'Write an FFT magnitude CSV.' This distinguishes it from generic waveform exports among the siblings, but it does not clarify how it differs from tools like export_waveform_csv beyond the FFT magnitude qualifier.

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 use this export versus the many sibling export tools (export_waveform_csv, export_derived_raw, export_measures_csv, etc.), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and one-line purpose.

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