Skip to main content
Glama
luc-me

LTspice MCP Server

by luc-me
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for components in the LTspice library, while the other manages simulation by saving and simulating circuits in a folder. There is no overlap in functionality, making them easy to differentiate.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tools use Spanish snake_case naming, which is consistent in style. However, the verb choices differ ('buscar' vs. 'gestionar'), and the naming pattern is not perfectly uniform (e.g., one includes 'en_libreria' while the other specifies 'ltspice'), leading to some inconsistency in structure.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for an LTspice domain, which typically involves tasks like circuit creation, component placement, parameter setting, and analysis. This limited set may not cover essential operations, making it too few for the apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for LTspice functionality. It lacks core operations such as creating or editing circuits, setting simulation parameters, running analyses (e.g., transient, AC), and viewing results. The existing tools cover only library search and basic simulation management, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it searches components but doesn't describe what kind of results to expect, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance characteristics. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context in the description.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

    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?

    For a single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any limitations. The output schema existence prevents this from being a complete failure, but the description should provide more guidance.

    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?

    The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'nombre', and the tool description provides no information about what this parameter represents, expected format, or examples. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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 verb ('Busca' - searches) and resource ('componentes en la biblioteca de LTspice'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'gestionar_simulacion_ltspice', which appears to be about simulation management rather than component search.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or relationship to the sibling tool, leaving usage entirely implicit.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving and simulating a circuit, implying mutation and processing, but does not detail behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether simulations are destructive, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Guarda y simula un circuito en su propia carpeta.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

    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 that there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage for parameters, the description is moderately complete. It states the basic purpose clearly but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, it should provide more information to be fully helpful.

    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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention the parameters 'netlist_content' or 'nombre_proyecto', nor does it explain their meanings or usage. Without any parameter information in the description, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving parameters undocumented.

    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 tool's purpose: 'Guarda y simula un circuito en su propia carpeta' (Saves and simulates a circuit in its own folder). It specifies the verb (save and simulate) and resource (circuit), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'buscar_componente_en_libreria' (search component in library), which appears to serve a different function. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Without such information, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ltspiceMCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ltspiceMCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/luc-me/ltspiceMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server