Skip to main content
Glama

calc.engineer

by engineer.calc

pcb layout

pcb_layout

Turn a SPICE netlist into a fab-ready 2-layer PCB: assigns real footprints (0805, TO-92, DO-35, DIP-8, headers, LED, radial-cap), auto-places components (connectivity-aware; or use your own placement), routes a 2-layer maze router with vias, and VERIFIES the result with DRC (clearance/crossing checks) and ERC (union-find copper connectivity proven against the netlist). Returns the board, routing stats + honest unrouted-net list, DRC violations, ERC net status, a 'manufacturable' flag (true only when DRC+ERC clean and everything routed), SVG layers (top/bottom copper, silkscreen, drill, assembly), and optional Gerber RS-274X + Excellon drill files. Same netlist you simulate with spice_simulate — design, verify, and lay out an entire board through the tool layer. Supply a 'placement' array for production-quality boards; the auto-router is a first-pass best-of-N-seeds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardNoOptional board size in mm; auto-sized if omitted
gerberNoAlso return Gerber RS-274X + Excellon drill files
netlistYesSPICE netlist (same format as spice_simulate). Components + nets are extracted; .model/.tran/etc. ignored.
gnd_pourNoTreat GND as a bottom-layer pour (unions all GND pads for ERC)
placementNoOptional manual placement; omit for connectivity-aware auto-placement (best of N seeds).
clearance_mmNoMinimum copper clearance in mm
trace_width_mmNoRouting trace width in mm

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drcNo
ercNo
netsNo
boardNo
gerberNo
routingNo
warningsYes
componentsNo
layers_svgNo
manufacturableYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs DRC and ERC checks, returns 'honest unrouted-net list', a 'manufacturable' flag, SVG layers, and optional Gerber. It also warns that the auto-router is a first-pass attempt, managing expectations.

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 thorough yet efficient, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing key features. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: input, process, output, and usage guidance. It explains the full workflow from netlist to manufacturing files, making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds extra context for several parameters: e.g., 'board' is auto-sized if omitted, 'gnd_pour' treats GND as bottom-layer pour, 'placement' is optional and overrides auto-placement. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 description uses a specific verb ('Turn a SPICE netlist into a fab-ready 2-layer PCB') and lists key actions (assign footprints, auto-place, route, verify with DRC/ERC). It clearly distinguishes from siblings such as spice_simulate by noting the same netlist is used for layout after simulation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use manual placement ('Supply a 'placement' array for production-quality boards') versus auto-placement ('the auto-router is a first-pass best-of-N-seeds'). Also connects to sibling tool spice_simulate ('Same netlist you simulate with spice_simulate'), guiding the agent on context.

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

All calc.engineer 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite 89 tools, each has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that often reference related tools. Overlap exists (e.g., multiple LoRa/RF tools), but the descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. Some confusion possible among similar-sounding tools like attenuator_pi and attenuator_tee, but the descriptions explicitly compare them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Consistent underscore-separated lowercase naming. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., capacitor_charge, wire_gauge) or noun_noun (power_cost). Minor inconsistencies such as 'bmi_calculator' vs 'solar_sizing' but overall predictable.

Tool Count2/5

89 tools is far too many for a single MCP server. This scope is more appropriate for multiple specialized servers. The sheer number will slow agent selection and increase cognitive load, reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

Covers many domains (RF, solar, PCB, networking, math, etc.) but lacks depth in some areas (e.g., no three-phase power, no airflow calculations). Some domains have comprehensive coverage (LoRa/Meshtastic), but others feel incomplete for the tool count.

Resources