Skip to main content
Glama

Electronics Architect

Derating analysis

run_derating
Read-onlyIdempotent

Grade every rated part of a design against a derating standard — NASA GSFC (EEE-INST-002 factors, 105 °C junction cap) or IPC-9592 (115 °C cap) — after one nominal solve. Solved server-side through the signed-in account: unmetered on Pro and Team; on the Free plan each solve counts toward its 10 a month through connected apps (meta.solvesRemaining says how many are left), and a design has 1 sheet. The same evaluator the editor's Derating panel runs, so the person sees exactly this report. Give a design document, a templateId or a saved design's designId, and the standard (required: which table a part is held to is the engineer's call). Returns, per graded component, its stress checks — parameter, actual, rated, the derated limit, stressPct (actual over RATED) and status — its worst status and mitigation text; summary counts compliant / warning / overstressed; thresholds is the factor table used. Status: GREEN inside the limit, ORANGE within the last 20 % under it, RED over it. A rating left at 0 or blank is UNSTATED, not a 0 limit: the parameter is skipped and named in the component's unrated list — tell the engineer what to enter rather than reporting a pass. Sources, loads and the BMS have no abs-max ratings and are not graded. A Motor's "Rated Power" check grades SHAFT power (electrical input × efficiency) against ratedPower, its rated mechanical output; an Inverter's "VA Loading" grades its output apparent power against vaRating. Read solve.converged first: a report on a solve that did not converge grades numbers that mean nothing. Unmetered on Pro and Team; on the Free plan it counts as one of the month's solves.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
designNoThe design document. Give this, `templateId` or `designId`.
designIdNoA saved design's id from create_design or list_designs — needs the signed-in account. Give this, `design` or `templateId`.
standardYesThe derating standard to grade against. Required.
templateIdNoA shipped template id from list_templates. Give this, `design` or `designId`.
ambientTemperatureNoAmbient in °C for the solve and the thermal stress figure. Default 25.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context: metering/quota behavior, the exact status semantics (GREEN/ORANGE/RED bands), the UNSTATED handling for zero/blank ratings, what is deliberately not graded (sources, loads, BMS), Motor/Inverter edge cases, and the convergence precondition. This is far beyond what structured fields provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action well, but it is dense and contains a verbatim redundancy: the Pro/Team unmetered and Free-plan solve-counting quota is stated once mid-description and again in the closing sentence. Trimming that duplicate iteration would materially tighten an otherwise information-rich passage.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns — per-component stress checks (parameter, actual, rated, limit, stressPct, status), worst status, mitigation text, `summary` counts, `thresholds`, and the `unrated` list. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `standard` is required and is 'the engineer's call', the design/templateId/designId triad are alternatives for supplying the design, and ambientTemperature feeds both the solve and the thermal stress figure. It doesn't restate every schema detail, which is appropriate.

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 — grade every rated part of a design against a named derating standard (NASA GSFC or IPC-9592) — and plainly distinguishes itself from siblings like solve_design, validate_design and review_design. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: run 'after one nominal solve', require a design/templateId/designId plus the standard, and warns to read `solve.converged` first. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. 'call solve_design before this') or stating when not to use it, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources