Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

getRiseFallTime

Compute the first rise and fall times from a transient simulation using configurable threshold percentages.

Instructions

Compute first rise/fall times for a transient response.

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": {
      "vector": "<vector>"
    },
    "name": "getRiseFallTime"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vectorYes
plotNo
run_idNo
raw_pathNo
step_indexNo
low_threshold_pctNo
high_threshold_pctNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'compute' without revealing side effects, data requirements, or operational context (e.g., whether it reads from a run, requires simulation results, or is read-only). Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but insufficiently covers the tool's functionality given 7 parameters. It is not verbose, but brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context such as prerequisites, parameter roles, and usage scenarios. For a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is highly incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings but does not. It adds no information about what 'vector', 'plot', 'run_id', 'raw_path', 'step_index', 'low_threshold_pct', or 'high_threshold_pct' represent or how they affect rise/fall time calculation.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'first rise/fall times' within the context of 'transient response'. It distinctly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like getBandwidth or getSettlingTime that compute other metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for transient simulation data), constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools