set_subcircuit_component_valueSet a component's value inside an LTspice schematic subcircuit file by specifying its schematic path, reference designator, and new value.
Set a value on a component inside a schematic subcircuit file.
| 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the file is rewritten on disk, whether the component must already exist, or what happens if the reference is unresolved.
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 efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. Terse but not wasteful; the shortfall is under-specification, not verbosity.
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 mutating tool with no output schema, 25% parameter coverage, and uninformative annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how the subcircuit file is located or what a successful write implies.
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). The description implies 'value' and 'reference' semantics but says nothing about schematic_path or workspace_root. With coverage this low the description should compensate and does not.
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 gives a specific verb (set), resource (value on a component), and a scope qualifier (inside a schematic subcircuit file), which cleanly separates it from the top-level set_component_value. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the subcircuit-vs-schematic distinction.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With close siblings like set_component_value and set_subcircuit_component_parameters present, the definition leaves the agent to guess which mutation tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.