set_element_modelAssign or update a component's model in an LTspice schematic using the schematic path, reference, and model name to prepare it for simulation.
Set a component model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | 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 safety profile is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no mention of what the mutation affects, whether it requires the schematic to be loaded, or what happens to an existing model assignment.
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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single four-word sentence that carries no actionable information and is not front-loaded with anything useful.
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 4-parameter mutating tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate: it omits the target of the change, the semantics of the model string, and any behavioral context the annotations do not cover.
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 is documented. The description supplies no meaning for model, reference, or schematic_path, so it fails to compensate for the gap; an agent cannot tell what format "model" expects or how "reference" resolves to a component.
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?
"Set a component model." restates the tool name and title almost verbatim without saying what a "model" is (SPICE model? symbol model? device model?) or what gets modified. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like set_component_value, set_component_parameters, set_parameter, or add_model.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (set_component_value, set_component_parameters, set_parameter, add_model, resolve_model_libraries). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.