Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

resolveSchematicSimulationTarget

Resolves which simulation file will execute from a schematic and explains sidecar requirements.

Instructions

Resolve which file simulateSchematicFile will execute and explain sidecar requirements.

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": {
      "asc_path": "<asc_path>"
    },
    "name": "resolveSchematicSimulationTarget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asc_pathYes
require_sidecar_on_macosNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves and explains sidecar requirements, hinting at a read-only behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or deeper behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

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 does not mention what the output contains (e.g., resolved file path, sidecar instructions). With two parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter details and return value.

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?

Both parameters lack schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain asc_path or require_sidecar_on_macos; it only implicitly hints that asc_path relates to the file and require_sidecar_on_macos controls sidecar explanation. The agent gains minimal additional meaning beyond parameter names.

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 uses specific verbs ('resolve') and refers to a resource ('which file simulateSchematicFile will execute'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulateSchematicFile itself. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage before calling simulateSchematicFile, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or when not to use it.

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