LTspice MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.