set_component_valueSet a component's value in an LTspice schematic by specifying the schematic path, component reference, and new value to update simulation parameters.
Set a component value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that – it does not say whether the edit is persisted to disk, what happens on an unknown reference, or whether the value is validated.
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 short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; it is front-loaded yet carries no information beyond the name. There is no waste because there is almost no content.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: how to identify the target component, what 'value' accepts, and how the change is persisted. It is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.
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 25% (just workspace_root), so reference and schematic_path are undocumented anywhere, and the description does not compensate. It only hints at the 'value' parameter by echoing the tool name, offering no format, unit, or identifier-format detail.
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 'Set a component value' merely restates the tool name and title without adding a specific verb-resource pairing or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as set_component_parameters, set_parameter, or set_subcircuit_component_value.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus set_component_parameters or set_subcircuit_component_value, nor about prerequisites such as the schematic needing to be loaded. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.