Skip to main content
Glama

Electronics Architect

Solve a design

solve_design
Read-onlyIdempotent

Solve a design and return node voltages, currents, dissipation, junction temperatures, rating checks and warnings. 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. It takes a design document, a template id, OR a saved design's designId (so a design you saved with create_design is solved at every corner without re-sending it), validates before solving, and names the tolerance corner plainly. Every warning carries a stable code, a level (info | caution | warning | critical), a human label, a message and a remedy saying what to change; summary.warningGroups collapses repeats. Read each sheet's converged boolean — never infer success from the absence of an error. A converter reports TWO efficiencies and they are meant to differ: a node's efficiency is the conversion efficiency read off its own curve at this load point, while summary.stages[].eff is the whole stage, Pout / Pin, which also pays the quiescent current. A 12 V to 5 V buck at 1 A reads 0.920 on the node and 0.910 on the stage, because the 0.060 W its iq draws is real dissipation the curve does not describe. Quote the STAGE figure for a power budget and the node figure when you are describing the part. The full result also gives each SMPS an efficiencyCurve: the curve the solver used, as [outputCurrent A, efficiency 0..1] pairs from 0 to iMax at the solved input and rail (light-load mode and effVin applied), with the node's efficiency on it; compact leaves it out. PREFER compact: true: the full result echoes every node's properties and repeats each warning three or four times, which is 55–70 KB for a 34-node design; compact keeps every solved number and one grouped warning list per sheet at a quarter to a third of the size. For a range of input voltage (a battery from empty to full, a supply across its tolerance) pass sweep: true rather than guessing charge levels: one call, three solved points, counted as one solve.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sweepNoSolve at three input points in one call: every battery empty (0 %), half (50 %) and full (100 %), every supply at the low end, middle and high end of its voltage tolerance. Use it for "across the battery range" or "at low and high line"; `corner` still applies, so "worst" with a sweep is worst case at low and at high line. Returns `points[]`, each with its inputs (setting, terminal voltage, current), totals, `stages` (with temperature) and grouped warnings; always terse. Counts as one solve. Default false.
cornerNoTolerance corner. "nom" is nominal values; "min"/"max" push every toleranced value the same way, which is how you find a rail that only fails at one end. "worst" moves each one the way that raises the draw and the heat (loads up, efficiencies down, a switcher's output up, an LDO's down) and holds the input at nominal: minimum efficiency at maximum load. Each sheet's `worstCase.held` lists what it held and why. Default "nom".
designNoThe design document. Give this, `templateId` or `designId`.
compactNoReturn the terse result: solved numbers per node without the property echo, `warningGroups` per sheet instead of the repeated warning arrays, the summary totals and `stages`. Default false (the full result).
designIdNoA saved design's id from create_design or list_designs — needs the signed-in account. Give this, `design` or `templateId`.
templateIdNoA shipped template id from list_templates. Give this, `design` or `designId`.
ambientTemperatureNoAmbient in °C for the thermal estimates. Default is the design's own setting, else 25.
includePortVoltagesNoInclude per-port voltages on every node result. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / corner / description
      Previous value: -"Tolerance corner. \"nom\" is nominal values; \"min\"/\"max\" push every toleranced value to its extreme, which is how you find a rail that only fails at one end. Default \"nom\"."New value: +"Tolerance corner. \"nom\" is nominal values; \"min\"/\"max\" push every toleranced value the same way, which is how you find a rail that only fails at one end. \"worst\" moves each one the way that raises the draw and the heat (loads up, efficiencies down, a switcher's output up, an LDO's down) and holds the input at nominal: minimum efficiency at maximum load. Each sheet's `worstCase.held` lists what it held and why. Default \"nom\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / corner / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "nom",
      -  "min",
      -  "max"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "nom",
      +  "min",
      +  "max",
      +  "worst"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / sweep
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Solve at three input points in one call: every battery empty (0 %), half (50 %) and full (100 %), every supply at the low end, middle and high end of its voltage tolerance. Use it for \"across the battery range\" or \"at low and high line\"; `corner` still applies, so \"worst\" with a sweep is worst case at low and at high line. Returns `points[]`, each with its inputs (setting, terminal voltage, current), totals, `stages` (with temperature) and grouped warnings; always terse. Counts as one solve. Default false.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description earns credit by adding substantial behavioral context beyond safety: plan limits and solve counting, result size (55–70 KB vs compact), the converged boolean as the success signal, warning structure with stable codes and remedies, and the nuanced difference between node and stage efficiency.

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 long but front-loads the core purpose and output list, then layers in billing, input options, warning semantics, efficiency nuances, and sweep guidance in a logical order. There is some repetition (e.g., 'counts as one solve' appears twice) and a few tangents, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information for a complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining return values—and it does: node voltages, currents, dissipation, junction temperatures, rating checks, warnings with codes/levels/labels/messages/remedies, summary.warningGroups, per-sheet converged booleans, dual efficiency figures, and efficiencyCurve details. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a solve result is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description largely repeats the sweep and corner semantics already in the schema and adds only marginal parameter-level meaning (e.g., 'PREFER compact: true'), so it lands at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (solve) and resource (design) and enumerates the exact result fields (node voltages, currents, dissipation, junction temperatures, rating checks, warnings). This is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like run_derating or simulate_monte_carlo without opening either 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use sweep (battery range, tolerance sweep), when to prefer compact (always, due to size), and how to supply a design (design, templateId, designId). It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like run_derating or review_design, so it misses the top tier.

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