Create a through-hole pin-header footprint as KiCad .kicad_mod text. Specify pin count, rows, and pitch to get ready-to-use footprint data without a running KiCad instance.
Generate a through-hole pin-header footprint as KiCad .kicad_mod S-expression text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| rows | No | ||
| pitch_mm | No | ||
| pin_count | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does tell the agent that the tool produces textual S-expression data rather than, say, writing a file directly, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or any constraints such as minimum pin count.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning, and the essential object, action, and output format are communicated immediately.
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?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the tool is relatively simple. Still, without parameter semantics or usage guidance, the description leaves the agent to infer important details about how rows or pitch affect the generated footprint.
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%, yet the description mentions no parameters at all. Fields like pin_count, rows, and pitch_mm are somewhat inferable from their names and defaults, but the description adds no semantic detail about how they affect the generated footprint.
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 states a specific action ('Generate') on a specific resource ('through-hole pin-header footprint') and the exact output format ('KiCad .kicad_mod S-expression text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_kicad_sexpr and roundtrip_kicad_sexpr, which perform different operations.
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?
Usage context is implied by the verb 'Generate' and the S-expression output, which contrasts with the parsing/classifying siblings. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.