ltspice-mcp

export_netlist

DestructiveIdempotent

Export an LTspice .asc schematic to a SPICE .net netlist.

Instructions

Export an .asc schematic to a SPICE netlist (.net) using LTspice.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_netlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to .asc schematic to export

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered by structured data. The description adds the 'using LTspice' context but does not explain what may be destroyed (e.g., overwriting an existing .net file) or what side effects occur.

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 sentence, immediately states the core conversion action, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations covering side-effect safety, the description is mostly complete. It would benefit from mentioning the output destination or that LTspice must be available, but it gives sufficient context for basic invocation.

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% because the single 'path' parameter is fully documented as 'Path to .asc schematic to export.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond matching that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resources: 'Export an .asc schematic to a SPICE netlist (.net) using LTspice.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like validate_netlist or export_waveform.

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 such as create_netlist or validate_netlist. It implicitly assumes the agent will know this is the export path, but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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