Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Plot Waveforms

plot_waveforms

Plot one or more comma-separated signals from an LTspice raw file to a PNG, enabling visual inspection of simulation waveforms.

Instructions

Plot one or more comma-separated signals to a PNG.

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>",
      "signals": "<signals>"
    },
    "name": "plot_waveforms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signalsYes
raw_pathYes
output_pathNo
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the PNG output format; it omits where the file lands by default, whether an existing file is overwritten, and what the required raw_path denotes.

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 the verb and result up front and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description is under-specified: it never explains raw_path, how/where the PNG is written, or whether plotting depends on prior simulation output. An agent would be guessing on key inputs.

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 25% (just workspace_root), leaving signals, raw_path, and output_path undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating signals are comma-separated and that output is a PNG, but raw_path and output_path semantics remain entirely unexplained.

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+resource (plot waveforms/signals) and the output artifact (PNG), which distinguishes it from streaming/export siblings like export_waveform_ascii or export_waveform_csv. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as compare_waveforms or export_waveform_csv. The agent must infer that this tool is for visual rendering while the export tools are for data formats.

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