export_waveform_asciiWrites one simulated signal as whitespace-separated ASCII text for easy parsing and analysis. Use it to extract waveform data from LTspice simulation results.
Write one signal as whitespace-separated text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | Yes | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds the output format but does not disclose what overwriting entails, permission requirements, or whether existing files are replaced.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a four-parameter export tool, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
For a write tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the role of raw_path versus output_path or how the export is performed.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It implies 'signal' is the data to export but leaves raw_path, output_path, and workspace_root undocumented, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete verb ('Write'), the resource ('one signal'), and the serialization format ('whitespace-separated text'). This distinguishes it from sibling exporters like export_waveform_csv and export_waveform_spice, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to choose ASCII over CSV or SPICE exports, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and format description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.