list_subcircuitsLists .subckt blocks and hierarchical symbols in an LTspice schematic source file, helping you locate reusable circuit definitions before editing or simulation.
List .subckt blocks and hierarchical symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it says nothing about pagination, ordering, what a hierarchical symbol entry looks like, or how results relate to the source_path. With annotations carrying the safety load, this thin description leaves real gaps.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented required path parameter; brevity here borders on under-specification.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description would need to convey what gets returned (names? a tree? counts?), and it does not. Combined with an undocumented required parameter and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 in-schema, but source_path has no description anywhere. The description does not explain what source_path should point to (a .asc schematic? a netlist?) or what the workspace_root override affects, so it fails 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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('.subckt blocks and hierarchical symbols'), so an agent knows it enumerates subcircuit definitions rather than reading one. It is distinguishable from read_subcircuit, though the description never names that sibling or clarifies scope. Clear but lacking explicit sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative read_subcircuit (or list_components). The agent must infer that this enumerates whereas read_subcircuit fetches a single definition. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.