run_simulationRun a batch LTspice simulation from a schematic file and return the results as JSON, enabling automated circuit analysis and waveform and log inspection.
Run one batch simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ascii_raw | No | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| source_path | Yes | ||
| extra_switches | No | ||
| 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, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered by structured data. However, the description adds nothing: no mention of what files or state a run produces, how the timeout_s parameter behaves, or that the run may execute external simulator processes (open-world).
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single five-word sentence is far too little for a non-idempotent, open-world execution tool with five parameters.
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 state-changing, open-world execution tool with five parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides no information an agent needs to invoke it correctly — no input format, no output artifacts, no interaction with the prepare_*/sweep tools.
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 20% and 5 parameters exist, so the description carries the burden of clarifying them. It mentions none — source_path, ascii_raw, timeout_s, extra_switches, and workspace_root are all left unexplained beyond their names.
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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ("Run one batch simulation") without saying what a simulation actually does here or what a "batch" means. It does not differentiate from close siblings like run_model_sweep, run_monte_carlo, run_param_sweep, or the batch family (submit_batch, collect_batch_results), leaving the agent unable to tell which runner to pick.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance at all. The use of the word "batch" is potentially confusing given separate submit_batch/cancel_batch/get_batch_status sibling tools, so an agent cannot infer the boundary between this tool and those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.