circuitarium-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Plan evidence-aware electronics verification

electronics_plan_verification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds a deterministic, simulator-neutral verification plan from explicit claims and bounded caller-reported evidence, without reading files or running tools.

Instructions

Builds a deterministic, simulator-neutral plan for explicit claims using bounded caller-reported evidence. It reads no files, runs no tools or simulators, authenticates no receipts, and never certifies physical hardware.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "claims": "<claims>"
    },
    "name": "electronics_plan_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claims`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`evidence`	No
`declaredInterface`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`context`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`diagnostics`	Yes
`nextActions`	Yes
`contractVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: deterministic, simulator-neutral, bounded evidence, no file reads, no tool execution, no receipt authentication, and never certifies physical hardware. These details are not present in the annotations and significantly enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 two dense sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists critical constraints. Every phrase contributes value (e.g., 'deterministic,' 'simulator-neutral,' 'bounded,' 'reads no files'), with no redundant or filler words.

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?

For a highly complex tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description captures the essential nature and key constraints. It does not detail all parameters or return values, but the extensive input schema and output schema (present in the context) fill in those gaps, making it sufficient for initial tool selection.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It mentions 'explicit claims' and 'bounded caller-reported evidence,' giving some meaning to the claims and evidence parameters, but it says nothing about the target or declaredInterface parameters. Given the complexity of the schema, this partial coverage is insufficient.

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 specific language: 'Builds a deterministic, simulator-neutral plan for explicit claims using bounded caller-reported evidence.' It clearly identifies the action (building a plan) and the object (explicit claims), and differentiates from sibling validation tools by stating it reads no files and runs no tools or simulators.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for planning, not execution, by explicitly stating 'It reads no files, runs no tools or simulators.' This implies when to use it versus actual validation tools, but it does not name specific alternatives or provide an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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