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

KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

by lmaag182
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_nets

Retrieve all nets from your KiCad design, filtered by net class to focus on specific signal groups.

Instructions

List all nets, optionally filtered by net class.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_nets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
netclassNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must imply behavior. It states 'list all nets' which suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on authorization, side effects, or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loading the verb and resource. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe return format or pagination, which could be inferred from output schema. Slight improvement possible.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to the 'netclass' parameter (optional filter). This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition, helping the agent understand its purpose.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'nets', with optional filtering by net class. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_components or list_tracks by specifying the resource and filter.

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 alternatives (e.g., get_items_by_net or other list tools). No context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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