KiCad Context MCP

by yigitabi5444

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly defined, non-overlapping purpose: board_overview for high-level summary, checks for validation, component for detailed component info, find for searching, net for net pin lists, power_tree for power distribution, and trace for connectivity walking. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are mostly lowercase with underscores for compound names, but they mix verb forms (find, checks, trace) with noun forms (component, net, power_tree). This inconsistency makes it slightly less predictable, though still readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers essential aspects of KiCad board analysis—overview, search, component details, nets, power, connectivity, and checks—without being overwhelming. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for understanding a KiCad board: starting from overview, searching for elements, drilling into components and nets, examining power distribution, and tracing connectivity. Minor gaps like direct listing of all nets or sheets are addressed via the find tool.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 29, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result includes counts by severity and a capped detail list, and that filtering by severity expands a class. However, it does not mention limits, error behavior, or nondestructive guarantees, leaving gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise—only two sentences—and immediately states the core action ('Run ERC (schematic) or DRC (board)'). No extraneous words, and key details are front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and 4 parameters with 0 required, the description provides a basic understanding of returns (counts, capped list) and filter behavior. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination (page parameter), and project scoping, leaving some gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'type' parameter (ERC/DRC) and 'severity' filter, but does not address 'page' or 'project' parameters. Thus, only half the parameters are semantically clarified.
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 runs ERC (schematic) or DRC (board) checks and returns counts by severity with a capped detail list. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource (ERC/DRC checks), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like board_overview or find.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only implies usage for running checks, but lacks exclusions or context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hop definition and the fact that large nets are reported but not fully expanded. However, it does not cover permissions, side effects, return format, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation safety cues.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.
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 the lack of output schema, zero annotation coverage, and four parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, error handling, and prerequisites. While it covers the core behavior, it leaves the agent unprepared for practical usage, such as interpreting results or handling edge cases.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It clarifies 'pin' (starting point) and 'depth' (max hops), but does not explain 'ref' (required) or 'project' (optional). 'Ref' is ambiguous and could be the component reference, which is critical for understanding the tool's usage. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
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 the tool's action ('walk connectivity from a pin outward') and its main constraint ('bounded by depth (max 3)'). It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'net' or 'power_tree' which likely have different scopes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the depth limit and behavior for large nets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation (get details of a component) and hints at interaction with the 'net' tool. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a usage hint. Every part earns its place; no wasted words.
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?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lists what is described but does not detail the return structure or clarify the 'fields' and 'pin->net map' format. Additional context would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'ref' is implied as the component reference but not explicitly described, and 'project' is not mentioned at all. The description should define these parameters to add value beyond the schema.
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 what the tool does: 'Describe one component' and enumerates the included information (value, footprint, datasheet, fields, pin->net map). It is specific about the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'net' and 'find' by hinting at how to use them together.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage hint ('Use net() on a pin's net to expand connectivity') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks clear guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: grouping by component and pagination for large nets. However, it omits details on pagination mechanics (e.g., page size), response format, and what happens if the net does not exist. It adds value beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and add a key behavioral detail (paginates). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not. It also lacks details on pagination defaults and the 'project' parameter. While it covers the core functionality, it leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the 'name' parameter (net name) and 'page' (pagination), but fails to mention the 'project' parameter or its purpose. This leaves a gap for one of three parameters.
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's purpose: listing pins on a net, grouped by component. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'pins on a net', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'component' or 'trace' which serve different resources.
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 like 'component' or 'find'. The description implies usage for listing pins on a net, but does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as an 'orientation call' listing board elements, implying a read-only operation without side effects. The description is transparent about what the tool returns, though it does not mention any potential side effects or permissions.
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 a single sentence with a colon-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be better structured by separating the purpose from the output details.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and expected outputs. However, the lack of parameter explanation and return format details makes it slightly incomplete. The sibling tools help contextualize its role.
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 schema has one optional parameter 'project' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description fails to explain what 'project' is, how it affects the output, or why it's optional. This is a significant omission for a single-parameter tool.
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 provides an overview of a board, listing specific elements like title, sheets, function blocks, key ICs, power rails, connectors, and part counts. It also says 'Make this first,' establishing it as the starting point for board analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like component and net.
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 explicitly says 'Make this first,' indicating when to use the tool (for initial orientation). It does not specify when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, but the sibling tools suggest differentiation, and the directive is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 pagination and return format (IDs + labels) but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or any side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the action and key parameter. Every part adds value with no unnecessary words.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details for 'query', 'page', and 'project', and does not specify output structure beyond IDs and labels. This is insufficient for effective tool usage.
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% and the description only explains the 'kind' parameter, mentioning specific values. It does not describe 'query', 'page', or 'project' parameters, which is a significant gap for a search tool.
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 ('Search the board') and the resource (board) with specific kind options. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the output is meant to feed into other tools, implying a search/discovery role.
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 for when to use the tool (when searching by query and kind) and hints at the workflow (feed into other tools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient for likely use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating 'Heuristic (library/value match),' indicating the tool uses a heuristic approach. However, it does not explain what happens when parameters are omitted or combined, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. The behavioral insight is minimal.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and usage hint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the heuristic's nature, the meaning of 'library/value match,' the expected output structure, or what the 'project' parameter does. The tool has two parameters and is part of a set of tools, but the description leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description explains the 'rail' parameter ('Pass a rail name to filter'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'project' parameter is entirely undocumented, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema explanations.
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 it shows 'Regulators and the rails they feed,' which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'net' tool by noting that this tool uses a heuristic and is intended for power tree exploration, while net is for full fanout of a rail.
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 guidance on when to use this tool: to view regulators and rails, optionally filtering by a rail name. It also explicitly directs users to 'Use net() on a rail for its full fanout,' offering a direct alternative. However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or mention other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![YSM-Kicad-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitabi5444/YSM-Kicad-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitabi5444/YSM-Kicad-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![YSM-Kicad-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitabi5444/YSM-Kicad-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yigitabi5444/YSM-Kicad-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yigitabi5444/YSM-Kicad-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server