Set a footprint's value text, such as '10k' or '100nF', by giving its reference designator and new value. Use it to update or correct component values in KiCad 10 PCB designs.
Set the value field text of a footprint (e.g. '10k', '100nF').
Args: reference: Reference designator. value: New value string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool, yet says nothing about side effects, whether the change is undoable, permission requirements, or whether it needs a saved/open board. It only clarifies the semantic meaning of the value field, which is minimal disclosure for a write operation.
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 core action sentence is front-loaded and tight, with the Args block adding only the two necessary parameter glosses. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and only two parameters are involved. However, with no annotations and a mutation operation, the description omits contextual facts an agent needs (board-open precondition, side effects), leaving it only minimally adequate.
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 description must compensate. It glosses both parameters ('reference: Reference designator', 'value: New value string') and gives value examples, which adds real meaning over the bare 'Reference'/'Value' schema titles, though the reference format is still unspecified.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Set the value field text of a footprint') and the examples ('10k', '100nF') make the domain clear (electronic component values). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to set a footprint value, so the overlaps are minimal.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a board/document must be open), and no alternatives among the many sibling footprint tools (set_footprint_locked, move_footprint, etc.). The agent must infer entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.