read_net_connectivityRetrieve pin-to-net connectivity from an LTspice schematic to identify which nets connect to component pins.
Return primitive pin-to-net connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no scope (whole schematic vs. selected pins), no return shape, no indication of what 'primitive' connectivity means.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be explained — and it does not explain it. For a connectivity-read tool, the agent is left without knowing the shape, scope, or granularity of the result.
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 50%: workspace_root is documented in the schema, but schematic_path carries no description there and none in the prose either. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter, leaving the agent to guess at path format and resolution rules.
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 names a verb (return) and a resource (pin-to-net connectivity), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'primitive pin-to-net connectivity' is domain jargon that is not unpacked, and it does nothing to distinguish this from related siblings like generate_netlist, read_component, or inspect_schematic.
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 tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. With siblings such as generate_netlist and inspect_schematic in the same space, an agent gets no routing signal from the description at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.