ltspice-mcp

by xuio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

syncSchematicFromNetlistFile

Regenerate a schematic from a netlist file, updating only when source content changes for efficient repeated use.

Instructions

Regenerate schematic from a netlist file only when source content changed.

Stores sync metadata in JSON so repeated calls are fast and deterministic.

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": "syncSchematicFromNetlistFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`netlist_path`	Yes
`circuit_name`	No
`output_path`	No
`state_path`	No
`sheet_width`	No
`sheet_height`	No
`placement_mode`	No	smart
`force`	No
`open_ui`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.32.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sync condition and metadata storage but omits side effects (overwriting), permission needs, or behavior when source unchanged, and does not reference the output schema.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant information.

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 an output schema and multiple siblings, the description lacks parameter guidance, behavioral details, and output description, making it incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and potential overwrite behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the nine parameters (netlist_path, circuit_name, etc.), leaving the agent to infer semantics from names only, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool regenerates a schematic from a netlist file only when source content changes, with a specific verb (regenerate) and resource (schematic from netlist file), distinguishing it from siblings like createSchematicFromNetlist and watchSchematicFromNetlistFile.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use (only when source changed, for fast deterministic syncing) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though the condition is implicit.

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

Deploy Server