ltspice-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

runMeasAutomation

Automate LTspice measurements by injecting .meas directives into netlists, running simulations, and extracting measurement values.

Instructions

Inject .meas directives into a netlist, run simulation, and parse measurement values.

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": {
      "measurements": "<measurements>"
    },
    "name": "runMeasAutomation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`measurements`	Yes
`netlist_path`	No
`netlist_content`	No
`circuit_name`	No	meas_automation
`asc_path`	No
`ascii_raw`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No
`show_ui`	No
`open_raw_after_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.32.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the netlist is modified destructively, timeout behavior, UI aspects, or return format. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but falls short.

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 a single, efficient sentence, but it lacks necessary detail to be fully informative. It earns its place for brevity but not for completeness, balancing at a 3.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (9 params, no schema descriptions, many siblings, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the measurement object, output, or relation to other tools like 'validateLtspiceMeasurements'.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. It fails to explain required 'measurements' format, the difference between 'netlist_path' and 'netlist_content', or defaults.

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 'Inject .meas directives into a netlist, run simulation, and parse measurement values' clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'runSimulation' and 'parseMeasResults' by combining multiple steps.

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 vs. alternatives such as 'runSimulation' for already prepared netlists or 'parseMeasResults' for parsing alone. No exclusions or context are given.

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

Deploy Server