Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Export Measures Csv

export_measures_csv

Export LTspice .meas results from a simulation log to CSV for spreadsheet or script analysis.

Instructions

Write .meas rows to 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": {
      "log_path": "<log_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_measures_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
log_pathYes
output_pathNo
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds only that the output is CSV and the rows are .meas rows, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, path handling, or other side effects beyond what the annotations imply.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded, but it is drastically under-specified for a three-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the mutation nature, three parameters with only one schema description, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what .meas rows are, where output goes by default, or how log_path and output_path interact.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with log_path (required) and output_path completely undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the required log_path and output_path semantics entirely 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 clear verb (Write) and resource (.meas rows) and output format (CSV), so the action is identifiable. It does not differentiate from sibling export tools such as export_waveform_csv or export_touchstone_s2p, but the basic purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_measures, read_measures, or other export tools, and gives no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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