Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simulateNetlist

Write a netlist and run an LTspice batch simulation in a single call, reducing manual steps.

Instructions

Write a netlist and run LTspice batch simulation in one call.

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_content": "<netlist_content>"
    },
    "name": "simulateNetlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
netlist_contentYes
circuit_nameNocircuit
ascii_rawNo
timeout_secondsNo
show_uiNo
open_raw_after_runNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'in one call' but does not explain side effects, file creation, or prerequisites. Parameters like show_ui and open_raw_after_run suggest UI behavior, but this is not clarified.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is too short for a tool with 6 parameters. While it is concise, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and does not earn its place with sufficient detail.

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 (6 params, no schema descriptions, presence of output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for an AI agent.

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 any of the 6 parameters. It fails to explain netlist_content format, circuit_name usage, ascii_raw, timeout_seconds, show_ui, or open_raw_after_run.

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 it writes a netlist and runs an LTspice batch simulation in one call, distinguishing it from separate steps. It specifies the verb 'write' and 'run' and the resource 'netlist' and 'LTspice batch simulation'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like simulateNetlistFile or runSimulation.

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. There are no exclusions or context indicators to help the agent decide.

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