prepare_saveInsert a .save directive into an LTspice schematic to specify which traces to save during simulation. Provide schematic path and trace names.
Insert a .save directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| traces | 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 (a mutation) and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the operation name: it doesn't say what gets modified (which schematic), whether an existing .save directive is replaced/appended, or that it requires a schematic 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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and has zero filler. But at this length it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, leaving the agent without enough to act confidently.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, 33% param coverage, and two undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. It never explains the .save directive's effect, the meaning of 'traces', or what the tool returns, so an agent cannot use 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 coverage is only 33%; only the optional workspace_root is documented. The two required parameters (traces, schematic_path) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description provides no clue what 'traces' means, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (Insert) and resource (.save directive), so an agent knows it mutates a schematic by adding a directive. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling prepare_* tools (prepare_ac, prepare_dc_sweep, etc.) that follow the same 'insert a directive' pattern, and '.save' semantics are left implicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives among the large prepare_* family. The agent must infer when a .save directive is needed versus other directives or save_schematic_as.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.