run_value_sweepSweep a component's value in an LTspice schematic by running the simulation once per specified value to compare circuit behavior across settings.
Run the schematic once per component value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| 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 disclose the safety profile (not read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing behavioral. A non-idempotent sweep that "runs the schematic" leaves unstated what artifacts are written, where they land, and whether the schematic itself is modified.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is structurally good. However, at this level of under-specification for a 4-parameter tool, brevity is a defect rather than a virtue.
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?
No output schema, minimal schema descriptions, and an annotation-only safety profile mean the description must carry the load for a non-idempotent, open-world execution tool — and it does not. An agent cannot tell what inputs it needs in what form or what it will get back.
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 25% — only workspace_root is documented — and the description contributes no parameter meaning beyond an oblique hint that "values" relates to component values. reference, values, and schematic_path remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"Run the schematic once per component value" gives a verb and the sweep dimension, which partially distinguishes it from run_param_sweep and run_model_sweep. But "run the schematic" is imprecise (spice simulation? netlist generation?) and the description never names the sibling it replaces. Purpose is inferable but not crisp.
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 and no named alternatives, despite four closely related sweep runners (run_param_sweep, run_model_sweep, run_monte_carlo, run_worst_case) that an agent must choose between. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the phrase "per component value."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.