prepare_nodesetInsert a .nodeset directive into an LTspice schematic to set initial node voltages and improve simulation convergence.
Insert a .nodeset directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignments | 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 declare it is a non-readonly write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds nothing about mutation behavior—whether it appends or replaces, what happens if a nodeset already exists, or what errors may occur. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still carries nearly zero additional behavioral context.
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?
It is technically concise (one sentence), but that brevity stems from under-specification, not disciplined editing. No structure, no front-loaded key information beyond a bare restatement.
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?
A write tool with 3 params, 33% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining behavior. The description does nothing to fill the substantial gaps: it does not explain what a nodeset directive is, where it is inserted, or the required 'assignments' format. Complete enough only in the trivial sense that the name is repeated.
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 coverage is 33%—only workspace_root has a description. The two required parameters, 'schematic_path' and 'assignments', are undocumented in both schema and description. The description provides no hint of their meaning or format, leaving the agent unable to supply them correctly.
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?
The description restates the name/title almost verbatim: 'Insert a .nodeset directive.' It names a verb and an artifact but does not explain what a nodeset is or why one would insert it, which is critical since this is niche SPICE domain terminology. It does not distinguish itself from numerous siblings like prepare_ic, prepare_options, or prepare_param.
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?
No guidance at all on when to use this vs alternatives. There are many 'prepare_*' siblings with overlapping semantics, and the description gives no criteria to choose between them or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.