set_parameterAdds or replaces a .param directive in an LTspice schematic, letting you define or update parameter values for simulation runs.
Add or replace a .param directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | 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 this is a non-readonly mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only the 'add or replace' semantics, but does not explain scope (which schematic is affected), behavior when the directive already exists, error cases, or whether duplicate directives can accumulate — meaningful gaps that the sparse annotations do not cover.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity pushes under-specification onto the other dimensions rather than being a conciseness win here.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, low parameter coverage, and only bare safety annotations, the description does not provide enough behavioral or parameter context for an agent to call it confidently. Return value is not a concern (no output schema), but scope, error handling, and value syntax are missing.
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 coverage is only 25% (only workspace_root is documented), so the description must compensate. It implies a name/value pair for the directive but gives no syntax, format, or units for 'value', no explanation of 'schematic_path' vs 'workspace_root', and no override/precedence rules.
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 names a specific verb ('Add or replace') and resource (a '.param' directive), so an agent understands this manipulates SPICE parameter directives rather than component values. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as prepare_param or set_component_parameters, so it stops short of a 5.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The agent is not told how this differs from prepare_param, set_component_parameters, or set_subcircuit_component_parameters, all of which appear in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.