Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Prepare Param

prepare_param

Insert a .param directive into an LTspice .asc schematic to define named parameter values for simulations.

Instructions

Insert a .param 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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
valueYes
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what file/state is mutated, whether repeated inserts create duplicates (idempotentHint=false suggests they do), or what happens on failure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With no output schema, no usage guidance, and 75% of parameters undocumented, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to invoke this correctly in a schematic-editing workflow.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (just the optional `workspace_root`), and the description supplies no meaning for `name`, `value`, or `schematic_path` — e.g. whether `value` is a numeric literal, expression, or parameter reference. 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.

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb ('Insert') and resource (a SPICE `.param` directive), which is more specific than the bare name 'prepare_param'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as `set_parameter`, `set_component_parameters`, or `run_param_sweep`, leaving the agent to guess which one writes a top-level .param directive.

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 to use this versus `set_parameter` (component parameter) or `run_param_sweep` (sweeping a parameter). No prerequisites, no mention of ordering or whether a schematic must already be open.

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