prepare_measInserts a .meas directive into an LTspice schematic without replacing existing measurements. Use it to add a new measurement statement while preserving all other .meas directives.
Insert a .meas directive without replacing other measurements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| statement | Yes | ||
| schematic_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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that existing measurements are preserved, which corroborates destructiveHint=false, but says nothing about repeat-call behavior or failure modes.
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 no filler. It is appropriately sized, though at the cost of the coverage gaps noted above.
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?
For a mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. It omits the expected `statement` syntax and the response/confirmation behavior an agent would need to call it reliably.
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 33% (just `workspace_root`), so the description must carry the burden for `statement` and `schematic_path`. Mentioning the `.meas` directive loosely implies what `statement` should contain, but neither parameter's format nor the target-file role of `schematic_path` is explained.
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 (insert) and a concrete resource (the `.meas` directive), so an agent knows it appends a SPICE measurement statement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other `prepare_*` siblings, but the named directive makes the resource unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as `prepare_save`, `prepare_param`, or `list_measures`. The only hint is the implied additive behavior ('without replacing other measurements'), which is a behavior note rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.