Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

patchNetlistModelBindings

Patches LTspice netlist model bindings by adding include files and remapping subcircuit or model names to correct reference errors.

Instructions

Patch netlist model bindings by adding includes and remapping model/subckt names.

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": {
      "netlist_path": "<netlist_path>"
    },
    "name": "patchNetlistModelBindings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
netlist_pathYes
include_filesNo
subckt_aliasesNo
model_aliasesNo
backupNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'adding includes and remapping' but does not disclose that the file is modified in-place, the meaning of the 'backup' parameter, or any side effects. Important behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose without extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 modifies files and has 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It lacks context about when to use this vs other netlist tools, the meaning of 'backup', and the overall workflow. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'include_files' and 'model_aliases/subckt_aliases' are used for the described operations, but does not explain 'netlist_path' or 'backup', and provides no details on how aliases are structured or used. Some value added but insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Patch' and the resource 'netlist model bindings', and specifies the actions 'adding includes and remapping model/subckt names'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like loadNetlistFromFile or simulateNetlistFile, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does without providing usage direction.

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