read_componentRetrieve details for a single component in an LTspice .asc schematic using its path and reference, so you can inspect its values and attributes.
Read one component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of error behavior for a missing reference, whether a schematic must be loaded first, or what the read returns.
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 sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but four words is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is room for one clarifying clause (required inputs, return shape) that would earn its place with no cost to brevity.
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?
With no output schema, two undocumented required parameters, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what it will get back or how to distinguish this from read_component_symbol.
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 workspace_root has a description), so the description must compensate for reference and schematic_path — yet it says nothing. It does not indicate that 'reference' is a designator like 'R1' or what form schematic_path takes, leaving both required parameters ambiguous.
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?
"Read one component" gives a verb and a resource and the word 'one' weakly distinguishes it from list_components. But it does not say what a component record contains or how it differs from read_component_symbol or inspect_schematic, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the description alone.
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 siblings like list_components, read_component_symbol, or inspect_schematic, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implicit signal is the singular 'one component'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.