LTspice MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.