Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Steps

list_steps
Read-onlyIdempotent

List stepped simulation runs from a raw file and optional log so you can inspect parameter sweep results.

Instructions

List stepped runs from a raw file and, when given, the log.

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": {
      "raw_path": "<raw_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
log_pathNo
raw_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that output derives from a raw file plus an optional log, which is useful context, but it says nothing about the returned structure or pagination.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally convey what a 'stepped run' listing returns, and it does not. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the return-value gap leaves the definition minimally adequate for this listing tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (just workspace_root). The description loosely maps raw_path to 'a raw file' and log_path to 'the log', partially compensating, but the required/optional distinction and the workspace_root override are not clarified in the description.

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 (stepped runs) with the source scoping ('from a raw file and, when given, the log'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like read_log or list_signals, leaving the agent to infer exactly what a 'stepped run' is versus other waveform listings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'when given, the log' implies the tool is useful after a stepped simulation, but the agent gets no signal about prerequisites or how to choose this over read_log or list_signals.

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