suggest_component_placementIdentify the next free grid point to the right of existing LTspice schematic parts, so you can place a new component without overlap.
Suggest the next free grid point to the right of existing parts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the deterministic placement rule ('right of existing parts'), which is useful context consistent with the idempotent annotation, but says nothing about what the suggestion actually returns.
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; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true concision.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'suggestion' returns (a coordinate? a structured object?), and it does not. Combined with the undefined required 'kind' parameter, the definition is minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent must guess at.
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 33% (only workspace_root is documented). The description explains none of the parameters — notably 'kind', whose meaning (component kind? element type?) is completely undefined in both schema and description, which is a real ambiguity for a required parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (suggest) and resource (next free grid point placement) with a clear spatial rule, so the agent knows it returns a candidate position rather than mutating the schematic. It does not contrast itself against siblings like set_component_position or apply_schematic_layout_spec, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives; the natural neighbors (set_component_position, apply_schematic_layout_spec, add_component) are never mentioned. The agent must infer that this is a pre-placement advisory step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.