DatasheetVend

Extract passive support BOM

datasheetvend_extract_passive_bom

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract the recommended passive support components: decoupling/bypass capacitors, crystal load caps, and pull-up/down resistors, with their values and the pins they connect to. Runs DatasheetVend Fast Extraction: a page scout routes targeted model reads and the module's own deterministic readers, then the same normalization and completion checks as a dashboard job finish the result, usually in seconds; engine names the engine on every result. If Fast Extraction cannot complete the module, the slower deep engine re-runs that module alone (engine.runtime is then monolith_rescue; the result says so, and it is billed as delivered). A rescue can take several minutes, so set a client timeout of 10 minutes. Only if the deep engine also cannot deliver does the module return status FAILED with the reason.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`partName`	No	Optional part number / MPN to disambiguate a multi-part datasheet.
`documentPath`	Yes	https:// URL to the datasheet PDF. The remote /api/mcp endpoint accepts ONLY https:// URLs (it downloads them); a local filesystem path works solely in local stdio mode (npm run mcp:serve).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`engine`	No	Which engine produced this result
`review`	Yes
`status`	Yes	The module's completion status (for example approved, approved_with_warnings or empty), or FAILED when Fast Extraction could not extract the module
`contract`	Yes	Contract id, e.g. thermal_evidence_v2
`warnings`	Yes	Public engineering warnings from the extraction.
`module_id`	Yes	Canonical module id
`extracted_data`	Yes	The module's extraction after its own normalization — values with the datasheet page they came from (source_page, where one was recorded) and, where the module provides them, confidence_score and source_text_snippet.
`canonical_output`	Yes	The module's canonical (CAD-ready normalized) output block.
`engineering_summary`	Yes	Concise human-readable engineering summary, when emitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description carries the interesting behavior: page-scout Fast Extraction, automatic fallback to a slower deep engine ('monolith_rescue'), a several-minute worst case with an explicit 10-minute client timeout recommendation, billing as delivered, and FAILED status with reason on double failure. This is exactly the operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the extraction target before any engine mechanics, and every clause about fallback/timeout/billing carries actionable information. It is dense and long, but not padded; a slightly tighter split of the engine paragraph would make it a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still adds the non-schema-visible semantics of `engine`/`engine.runtime` and the FAILED path. Combined with the timeout warning, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and wait appropriately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both documentPath and partName are documented in-schema), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about either parameter, though it does mention the `engine` field, which is a result field rather than an input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Extract the recommended passive support components') and enumerates exactly what is returned: decoupling/bypass caps, crystal load caps, pull-up/down resistors with values and connected pins. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like extract_pinout or extract_power_domains without needing to name them.

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 the use case (you want a passive support BOM from a datasheet) but never states when to choose this over sibling extractors such as extract_pinout or extract_peripheral_matrix, nor any prerequisites. The only conditional guidance given is about internal engine fallback, not tool selection.

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

All DatasheetVend tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?