partreel
Server Details
Verified KiCad footprints, symbols & 3D models for AI agents. No signup, CC-BY-4.0, quality-gated.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_part retrieves details, list_parts lists all, search_parts searches, request_part creates new, report_feedback records feedback, and how_to_contribute provides instructions. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_part, list_parts, search_parts) using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a part registry. It covers access (get, list, search), generation (request), feedback (report), and contribution instructions without being excessive or lacking.
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle: search, list, get details, request missing parts, and provide feedback. Minor gap is lack of update or delete operations, but these may be intentionally excluded as registry edits might be managed externally.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_partAInspect
Get full detail for one part by id: parameters, verification status, datasheet, and absolute download URLs for .kicad_mod (footprint), .kicad_sym (symbol), .step and .glb (3D).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Part id, e.g. 'jst_ph_4pin', 'usb_c_16p' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data types but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication, or side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs without extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. Could mention response structure, but not critical for a simple get-by-id tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description provides example IDs similar to the schema description, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for one part by ID, listing specific data (parameters, verification status, datasheet, download URLs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_parts' and 'search_parts' which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing full detail for a specific part ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for listing or searching) or alternatives. The sibling names provide indirect context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
how_to_contributeAInspect
Get machine-readable instructions for contributing a new part to the registry (file layout, metadata schema, quality gates, PR process). Use when a part is missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is 'machine-readable' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and usage context without superfluous words. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description lists the key content areas returned. It does not mention prerequisites or return format details, but the tool's simplicity (no parameters) makes it mostly complete for its function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not attempt to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('machine-readable instructions for contributing a new part'), and the listed content areas (file layout, metadata schema, quality gates, PR process) differentiate it from sibling tools like get_part or list_parts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises 'Use when a part is missing,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools cover the alternative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_partsAInspect
List all parts in the registry (id, name, family, pins).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or any side effects. However, the operation is inherently safe, so the lack of explicit disclosure is minor.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or extra words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-all tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it lists the returned fields. Lacks mention of ordering or pagination, but these are not essential for a registry list. Could be more complete by noting there is no filtering, but 'all parts' already implies that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. No deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (List), resource (parts), and scope (all parts) with returned fields (id, name, family, pins). Distinguishes from siblings like get_part (specific part) and search_parts (filtered search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. Implicitly, it is for getting all parts; but does not mention that get_part is for a single part or that search_parts is for filtering. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_feedbackAInspect
Report real-world usage feedback for a part (e.g. 'fabricated 5 boards at JLCPCB, footprint fit perfectly' or 'pad 3 misaligned'). Feedback is recorded publicly on GitHub and builds the part's field-proven trust score. Please report after actually using a part — both successes and problems help.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | Details: what you built, fab house, what worked or what was wrong (max 1000 chars) | |
| result | Yes | 'worked' = used successfully, 'problem' = issue found | |
| part_id | Yes | Part id, e.g. 'jst_ph_4pin' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that feedback is recorded publicly on GitHub and contributes to a trust score, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but these are not critical for a feedback tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a usage note. It front-loads the core purpose and examples, with no wasteful language. Every sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the feedback lifecycle (public recording, trust score) and parameter roles through examples, leaving no ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for 'notes' (e.g., what you built, fab house) and clarifying 'result' enum meanings ('worked' = success). This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting real-world usage feedback for a part. It provides specific examples ('fabricated 5 boards at JLCPCB, footprint fit perfectly') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_part or list_parts, which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using the tool after actual part usage and notes that both successes and problems are valuable. It does not list alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use, but the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_partAInspect
Request on-demand generation of a parametric part that isn't in the registry yet. The registry generates it (footprint+symbol+3D), runs quality gates, and publishes it within ~5 minutes. Pin-count families (use 'pins'): pin_header_254 (2.54mm), pin_header_200 (2.0mm), pin_header_127 (1.27mm) — pins 1-40. Variant families (use 'variant'): ht73xx (LDO Vout code: 7318,7325,7327,7330,7333,7335,7341,7350), ht78xx (7818,7825,7827,7830,7833,7850), sy8008 (grade a/b/c = 0.6A/1A/1.2A), max1704x (17048,17049). Always try get_part / search_parts first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pins | No | for pin_header_* families | |
| family | Yes | ||
| variant | No | for variant families (e.g. '7350', 'a', '17049') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that generation takes ~5 minutes, runs quality gates, and publishes. It does not mention any destructive behavior or failure modes, but for a creation tool this is adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then timeline, then parameter guidance, then sibling advice. Every sentence is useful, though it could be slightly more terse without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of multiple families and parameter types, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool. No output schema exists, but the description explains the process outcome sufficiently. Minor missing details about error handling do not detract significantly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, but the description explains each parameter in detail beyond the schema: for pins it specifies ranges implicitly via families, and for variant it lists exact valid codes per family (e.g., '7350', 'a', '17049'). This adds significant semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's for requesting on-demand generation of a parametric part not yet in the registry, and it specifies the process details (footprint+symbol+3D, quality gates, ~5 min). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising to try get_part/search_parts first, making its unique purpose very clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (only after trying get_part/search_parts), and how to use parameters: 'Pin-count families (use 'pins')' and 'Variant families (use 'variant')' with specific examples. This leaves no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_partsAInspect
Search the PartReel registry of verified KiCad components (footprint + symbol + 3D STEP/GLB, no login, CC-BY-4.0). Returns matching parts with ids. Use get_part for download URLs. Example queries: 'usb-c', 'jst ph 4pin', 'esp32', 'microsd', 'screw terminal'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search text (name, family, keywords, pin count) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description discloses read-only nature (search), no login required, and license CC-BY-4.0, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or empty result handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences and a list of examples; no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers key aspects: what it searches, what it returns (parts with ids), license, and example queries. No output schema, but the return value is implied. Slightly lacking details on ordering or filtering beyond text search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value via example queries (e.g., 'usb-c', 'jst ph 4pin') that illustrate valid inputs, going beyond the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search the PartReel registry of verified KiCad components'), specifies the resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_part by noting its use for download URLs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides example queries and explicitly directs users to get_part for download URLs, but does not address when to use alternative tools like list_parts or request_part.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!