list_componentsRetrieve all placed components from an LTspice .asc schematic by path to inspect or verify circuit contents.
List placed components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schematic_path | Yes | ||
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top — no indication of scope (whole schematic vs. a sheet), ordering, pagination, or result size, which is the kind of context that would actually earn credit here.
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 zero filler, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned (component identifiers, references, values?) and in what shape. It says only 'placed components', leaving the return contract and the required schematic_path semantics unexplained.
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 50%: workspace_root is documented but schematic_path is not. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required path parameter.
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 and resource ('List placed components'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like read_component, inspect_schematic, or list_subcircuits, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as read_component (single component detail) or inspect_schematic (broader survey). No prerequisites, no scoping conditions, nothing to route the agent among the many sibling list/read tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.