Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ltspice-mcp

ltspice-mcp

by xuio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tailDaemonLog

View the most recent lines from the active daemon log file to monitor LTspice simulation progress and errors.

Instructions

Return tail text from the active daemon log file.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tailDaemonLog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesNo
log_pathNo
log_dirNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.32.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description is short, it covers the core function. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding parameters and output format.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters. The description adds no detail about parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use 'lines', 'log_path', or 'log_dir'.

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 action (return tail text) and the resource (active daemon log file). It uses a specific verb and noun, and distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are focused on circuit design and simulation tasks.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify conditions or exclusions. The sibling list is extensive, but no comparative context is given.

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