Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

by lmaag182
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_layer_name

Retrieve the human-readable name for a PCB layer using its technical identifier, facilitating layer identification in KiCad projects.

Instructions

Get display name for a layer.

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": {
      "layer": "<layer>"
    },
    "name": "get_layer_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Description indicates a read operation ('Get') with no side effects, but does not disclose behavior for invalid layers or output format. Within annotations missing, this is minimal but acceptable.

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, lean sentence. Efficient but sacrifices some utility for brevity; a bit more context would improve without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple getter with an existing output schema (presumably documenting return format). However, misses details on error handling and parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning for the 'layer' parameter beyond its type. It does not specify expected format (e.g., layer name, index, or ID), forcing the agent to guess.

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?

The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (display name for a layer). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_active_layer or get_layer_list by focusing on the display name of a specific layer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other related tools like get_layer_list or get_active_layer. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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