Skip to main content
Glama

find_pins_by_name

Locate pin numbers on a component by matching a name pattern, supporting wildcards and case-insensitive search for efficient schematic design.

Instructions

Find pin numbers matching a name pattern.

Supports wildcard patterns (e.g., "CLK*", "IN") for semantic pin lookup. By default, matching is case-insensitive for maximum flexibility.

Args: reference: Component reference designator (e.g., "R1", "U2") name_pattern: Name pattern to search for (e.g., "VCC", "CLK*", "IN") case_sensitive: If True, matching is case-sensitive (default: False) ctx: MCP context for progress reporting (optional)

Returns: Dictionary with pin_numbers list and metadata, or error information

Examples: >>> # Find all clock pins >>> result = await find_pins_by_name("U1", "CLK*") >>> print(f"Clock pins: {result['pin_numbers']}")

>>> # Find power pins (case-insensitive)
>>> result = await find_pins_by_name("U1", "vcc")
>>> print(f"VCC pins: {result['pin_numbers']}")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYes
name_patternYes
case_sensitiveNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: wildcard semantics, case-insensitive matching by default, and the return shape including error information. It doesn't specify error conditions or whether lookup requires the schematic to be loaded first, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by structured Args/Returns/Examples sections. The examples are useful but somewhat verbose, and the Returns section partially duplicates the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description still covers parameters, wildcard/case behavior, and errors. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling lookup tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters with examples, defaults, and semantics (wildcard syntax, case-sensitivity toggle). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though 'reference' is only lightly elaborated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find pin numbers matching a name pattern') with clear scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_pins_by_type by emphasizing name-pattern matching, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: wildcard patterns and case-insensitive default give a sense of how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer find_pins_by_type or get_component_pins instead.

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