Skip to main content
Glama

boardrepo

by com.boardrepo

Search public boards

search_boards
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user wants to find real public KiCad/EDA projects: reference designs, or boards using a given component, tag, license, author, or capability (pcb, schematic, bom, gerbers). Searches BoardRepo's public corpus and returns up to 20 board summaries per page (handle/slug, name, description, tags, license, capabilities, saves, stars, URL), ranked by popularity by default so the most-trusted boards come first; pass page for more, or sort:recent for newest. Query is free text plus optional qualifiers: component:esp32 tag:keyboard license:mit has:pcb author:handle. Free-text words are ANDed, so a specific multi-word query narrows fast: if it returns nothing, do not shave one word off and retry — cut straight to the SINGLE most distinctive term (the brand, chip family, or part number) before concluding no board exists. Weigh each result by its saves/stars and completeness rather than trusting it blindly. Do not use for general electronics theory, generic datasheet facts, or the user's own local or private design. Pass a result's handle/slug or URL to get_board; do not guess a handle/slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page; each page returns up to 20 boards.
sortNoResult ordering: popular (default: most saved, then most GitHub-starred) or recent (newest first).
queryNoFree text and/or qualifiers, e.g. "esp32 keyboard component:esp32 tag:keyboard has:schematic author:alice". Free-text words are ANDed, so every extra word can only NARROW the results — measured on the live corpus, "esp32" matches 748 boards, "esp32 keyboard" 23, and "esp32 keyboard lora" 1. Start with the ONE most distinctive word (a part number, chip family, or brand) and add terms only to narrow a result set that is too large. At most 6 distinct free-text words; more is rejected. Omit to list recent public boards.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNo
pageYes
sortYes
totalYes
boardsYes
hasNextPageYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent, and the description adds default ranking, pagination cap of 20, ANDed free-text semantics, qualifier syntax, and a caveat to weigh results by saves/stars. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the use case, then output/behavior, query semantics, and strategy. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the organization matches an agent's decision flow. Slightly dense but not padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich input schema and existing output schema, the description covers pagination, sorting, qualifiers, defaults, and edge-case handling (empty results). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: qualifier syntax (component:, tag:, license:, has:, author:), AND semantics, the 6-word limit, and a search optimization strategy ('cut straight to the SINGLE most distinctive term'). This goes far beyond the schema description.

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 states a clear verb ('Searches') and resource (BoardRepo's public corpus), and specifies the project types and returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_board', so the agent must infer the plural/scope distinction.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when...' and describes the intended user goal, and it gives a concrete query strategy for handling empty results. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, so it is clear context but no exclusions.

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

All boardrepo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: board metadata, BOM, stored checks, file listing, fab profiles, structured queries, raw file contents, schematic connectivity, running checks, text search within a board, and board search across the corpus. Even similar pairs like get_checks/run_checks and search_board/search_boards are clearly separated by their descriptions and intended use.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_, list_, read_, query_, run_, and search_ prefixes that accurately signal their behavior. There are no style mixes or ambiguous generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of board discovery, retrieval, and design inspection. The set feels complete without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full read-side workflow: searching boards, fetching metadata and BOMs, inspecting schematic connectivity, reading raw or structured files, listing fabrication profiles, and retrieving or running DRC/ERC checks. No obvious gaps exist for a read-only public KiCad board repository browser.

Resources