Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Includes

list_includes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists .lib and .include directives in an LTspice schematic source file so you can inspect referenced libraries and include paths before editing or simulation.

Instructions

List .lib and .include directives.

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": "list_includes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond the resource type, the description adds nothing about the return shape, error behavior, or whether nested/inherited includes are resolved.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the key content is front-loaded. It is terse but arguably under-specified rather than over-elaborated.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the agent is not told what the returned list looks like or how source_path is used. Given a required undocumented parameter and no return description, the definition leaves important gaps.

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?

The required 'source_path' has no description in the schema and is never mentioned in the description; only 'workspace_root' is documented (schema coverage 50%). The description does nothing 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('.lib' and '.include' directives), which clarifies what the cryptic 'includes' refers to. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as add_library_include or list_subcircuits.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent knows what is listed but not when to reach for this tool versus, say, inspecting a schematic or reading a subcircuit.

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