Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Generate Netlist

generate_netlist

Convert an LTspice .asc schematic into a SPICE netlist for simulation or connectivity review.

Instructions

Write a netlist with LTspice -netlist, or the clean-room renderer.

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": {
      "source_path": "<source_path>"
    },
    "name": "generate_netlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathNo
source_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the write nature is already declared and the description is consistent with it. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that a fallback 'clean-room renderer' exists, implying LTspice may not be required, but it says nothing about side effects, overwrite behavior, or where output lands.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though the 'clean-room renderer' phrase is unexplained jargon that a reader must already know.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and only 33% schema coverage, more is needed: what source is consumed, where the netlist is written, and when to prefer this over save_netlist_copy. The description leaves most of that to inference.

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 coverage is only 33%: source_path and output_path have no schema description, and the description gives no meaning for either (what is the source, where does the netlist get written, is output_path optional/derived). With coverage well under 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb+resource are concrete ('Write a netlist'), and it names the two rendering backends (LTspice '-netlist' or the clean-room renderer). It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like save_netlist_copy or prepare_net, so the agent cannot route on the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The existence of save_netlist_copy and prepare_net among siblings makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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