Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Remove Component

remove_component
Destructive

Delete a specified component from an LTspice .asc schematic using its reference, allowing circuit edits before simulation.

Instructions

Remove a component.

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>",
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "remove_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYes
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state what is destroyed (the symbol, attached wires, net labels?), whether the reference must exist, or whether the removal can be undone. For a destructive mutation that burden is significant.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is a single short sentence, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded useful content because there is no content at all.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, 3-parameter removal tool with a partially documented schema and no output schema, the description provides none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 33% (only workspace_root is documented), and the description supplies no information about 'reference' or 'schematic_path' semantics. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name ('Remove a component.') with no scope, no target detail, and no differentiation from the many sibling removal tools (remove_wire, remove_junction, remove_net_label, remove_component_symbol_drawing). It is effectively a tautology of the name/title.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call remove_component rather than remove_component_symbol_drawing or whether removing a component also strips its wires.

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