Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

getRunDetails

Retrieve full details of an LTspice simulation run by run ID, with options to include output and specify log tail lines.

Instructions

Get full details for a run_id, or the latest run if omitted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getRunDetails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNo
include_outputNo
log_tail_linesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The word 'Get' suggests read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. A 3 is appropriate as it likely implies read-only but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details about parameters, making it less useful than it could be.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values or how to interpret parameters like log_tail_lines. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving gaps.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only mentions run_id, ignoring include_output and log_tail_lines. This leaves the agent without knowledge of these parameters' purpose, which is a critical gap.

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 tool gets full details for a specific run_id or the latest run if omitted, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listRuns (which list runs) and other getters for specific attributes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: when needing full details for a run. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the brevity and sibling context make it clear enough. A small improvement would be to mention that for partial details, use other specific getters.

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