Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LTspice MCP

LTspice MCP

by kh6570
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Write Workspace Text File

write_workspace_text_file

Writes a text file to a specified path within the workspace, enabling storage of LTspice netlists, scripts, or simulation logs.

Instructions

Write a text file inside the workspace.

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": {
      "relative_path": "<relative_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_workspace_text_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
relative_pathYes
workspace_rootNoOptional per-call workspace root override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'write a text file' — it says nothing about overwriting existing files, encoding, size limits, or path resolution, which are the behaviors an agent actually needs for a write tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — there is no front-loaded information beyond the obvious restatement of the name.

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?

For a write tool with 33% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining side effects, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens on path collisions or where relative_path resolves without guessing.

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 33%: only workspace_root has a description. The description does not explain relative_path (relative to what? the workspace root?), content semantics (text, overwrite?), or the root override, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (write) and resource (text file inside the workspace), which distinguishes it from the schematic/netlist siblings. It doesn't name any near-alternative, but no sibling does the same thing, so clarity is high.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (workspace must exist, overwrite semantics), and no alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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