ltspice-mcp

create_netlist

Destructive

Create a SPICE netlist file from provided content, automatically appending .END if missing. Supports subdirectories and optional overwrite.

Instructions

Create a new SPICE netlist file from content string. Automatically appends .END if missing.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_netlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	File name without extension (.cir is appended). May include a relative subpath, e.g. 'work/rc/rc_lowpass' — it is resolved under the server working directory and parent directories are created automatically. Must stay within an allowed path ('..' is rejected).
`content`	Yes	Complete SPICE netlist content
`overwrite`	No	Overwrite an existing file at this path. Default is to refuse.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds a specific behavioral detail: automatically appending .END if missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful context about file handling.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a single notable behavior. There is zero redundancy or filler, every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations flag destructive behavior, the description adequately explains the core function and a key side effect (.END appending). It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and this is not critical for a creation tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though slightly more detail on overwrite handling could be added.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter documentation (e.g., name handling, overwrite default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 (Create) and resource (SPICE netlist file) along with the input source (content string). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like export_netlist or validate_netlist by specifying 'new' file creation, making its purpose 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 usage for creating netlists but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., edit_directive for modifying existing files, read_circuit for reading). No clear 'when not to use' guidance is provided; only the general context of 'new' is evident.

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