Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Submit Remote Simulation

submit_remote_simulation

Run a background local LTspice simulation from a schematic path and return a session ID for logs and waveforms.

Instructions

Start a background local simulation and return a session id.

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": {
      "source_path": "<source_path>"
    },
    "name": "submit_remote_simulation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the run is 'background' and yields a session id, implying an async pattern, but says nothing about failure behavior or whether source_path must already exist.

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 wasted words. It is arguably too terse for an async submission tool, but structurally clean and well-ordered.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only says a session id is returned. It omits the essential follow-up workflow (poll_remote_run, download_remote_artifacts, close_remote_session) that an agent needs to actually use the returned session id, and leaves the required parameter undocumented.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%. The required 'source_path' has no description in either schema or description, and workspace_root is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, leaving the most important required input unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a clear verb and resource ('Start a background local simulation') plus the outcome ('return a session id'). However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like run_simulation or submit_batch, and the term 'local' directly conflicts with the tool's name 'submit_remote_simulation', which muddies selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from run_simulation (synchronous?) or submit_batch, nor when the async session flow is preferable.

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