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

KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

by lmaag182
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_visible_layers

Control which layers are visible in the KiCad board editor by specifying the layers to show.

Instructions

Set which layers are visible in the editor.

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": {
      "layers": "<layers>"
    },
    "name": "set_visible_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layersYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting details like whether it replaces or toggles visibility, error conditions, or the effect on non-specified layers. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but at the expense of necessary detail. While concise, it lacks context that would be valuable, such as parameter format or behavioral notes.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should have explained parameter semantics and behavioral effects. It is too minimal to enable correct and safe tool invocation, especially with the presence of an output schema that is not leveraged in the description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The single parameter `layers` has a schema coverage of 0%, and the description adds no details about the expected data type (e.g., strings or integers), valid values, or the meaning of the array (e.g., which layers become visible). The description adds virtually no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('set') and the resource ('visible layers'), and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like `get_visible_layers` and `set_enabled_layers`. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its primary use (setting layer visibility) but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like `get_visible_layers` or `set_enabled_layers`, nor any prerequisites or context for use.

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