Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Save Schematic As

save_schematic_as

Copy an LTspice schematic to a new path, keeping the original intact for edits or backups.

Instructions

Copy a schematic to a new path.

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>",
      "destination_path": "<destination_path>"
    },
    "name": "save_schematic_as"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schematic_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.
destination_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description repeats the 'copy' notion without adding anything extra: no overwrite behavior if destination_path exists, no mention of whether the source is polluted or the new schematic becomes active, and no return context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. Terse and easy to scan, though it may be under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only one documented parameter, the description leaves key behaviors (overwrite, return value, source preservation) unspecified. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

Only 33% schema coverage — workspace_root has a description, but the two required parameters (schematic_path, destination_path) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description says 'a new path' but never clarifies format, whether it's a file or directory, or what happens on collision.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a schematic' to a new path. This clearly distinguishes it from save_netlist_copy (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_schematic or explain the 'as' semantics (save under a new name vs duplicate).

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 indication of when to use this vs create_schematic, save_netlist_copy, or write_workspace_text_file. No prerequisites or context about whether the schematic must already exist or be loaded.

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