ltspice-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

simulateSchematicFile

Run a batch simulation on an existing LTspice schematic file, with optional validation to detect and resolve errors before simulation.

Instructions

Run LTspice batch simulation for an existing schematic (.asc) file.

Optional preflight validation is included to help agents debug schematics before simulation.

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": "simulateSchematicFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asc_path`	Yes
`ascii_raw`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No
`show_ui`	No
`open_raw_after_run`	No
`validate_first`	No
`abort_on_validation_error`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.32.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions running a simulation and optional validation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, resource impact, or detailed behavior during simulation.

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?

Two sentences, concise but lacking structure. It is short but omits critical information, so conciseness is not leveraged effectively.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Even with an output schema present, it fails to cover parameter roles and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Essential parameters like asc_path, ascii_raw, timeout_seconds, etc., are not described, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'LTspice batch simulation for an existing schematic (.asc) file', with mention of optional preflight validation. Distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for batch simulation of .asc files.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like runSimulation or queueSimulationJob. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server