Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Prepare Four

prepare_four

Insert a .four directive into an LTspice schematic to run Fourier analysis on selected traces at a specified frequency.

Instructions

Insert a .four directive.

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": {
      "schematic_path": "<schematic_path>",
      "frequency": "<frequency>",
      "traces": "<traces>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_four"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tracesYes
frequencyYes
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'Insert' is consistent but adds nothing beyond them. It does not say whether repeated calls duplicate the directive, what the tool requires of the schematic, or that it writes into an existing schematic file.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its brevity by conveying the essential directive semantics an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A write tool with no output schema, 75% undocumented parameters, and no annotations-redundant behavioral notes. The description leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly for its primary parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (just workspace_root), and the description supplies zero meaning for the three required parameters. For a `.four` directive the crucial arguments are frequency and traces, and the description never maps them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

It gives a specific verb ('Insert') and resource (a `.four` directive), but `.four` is bare jargon that only restates the tool name's 'four'. Unlike siblings such as prepare_ac or prepare_noise, an agent gets no explanation of what the directive actually does (Fourier analysis setup), so differentiation rests entirely on the token name.

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 guidance on when this tool should be invoked versus the other ~18 prepare_* siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. it requires a schematic_path), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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