read_subcircuitRetrieve a .subckt body or hierarchical sheet from an LTspice schematic so you can inspect or reuse its contents.
Return one .subckt body or a hierarchical sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| source_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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no return format, no error behavior, no note on what a hierarchical sheet read entails.
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. It is efficiently sized for what it says, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 of three parameters undocumented, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves significant gaps for a read tool. Annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently.
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 33%: source_path and name (both required) carry no schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate with any meaning for them. Only workspace_root is documented. The low coverage means the description should add parameter context but does not.
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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (.subckt body / hierarchical sheet), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_subcircuits and read_component. However, the 'or a hierarchical sheet' clause is vague and it doesn't clarify the relationship to list_subcircuits.
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 is provided. It never explains when to reach for read_subcircuit versus list_subcircuits, inspect_schematic, or read_component, nor what preconditions (e.g. valid source_path) are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.