Skip to main content
Glama

audit_find_acute_angles

Detect same-net track pairs forming sub-90° interior corners on signal layers, flagging acute-angle DFM violations before fab DRC rejects the board.

Instructions

Find pairs of same-net tracks meeting at < 90° interior angle.

Classic fab DFM check: at an acute corner the etchant pools and over-etches the inside of the bend -- the trace narrows or breaks during fabrication. Most fab houses reject sub-90° corners on critical-thickness traces in their automated DRC, but the rejection comes back days into the schedule; catching it on the desk is much cheaper.

Algorithm (pure geometry, no rule dependency):

  • Walk every track on signal layers

  • At each endpoint, spatial-iterate for other tracks on the SAME net sharing that endpoint

  • Build direction vectors AWAY from the shared point

  • Dot product positive → interior angle < 90° → acute

Capped at 100 violations to keep responses manageable on dense boards. Per-violation: net, layer, x_mils / y_mils of the corner, and the actual angle in degrees.

Pattern: SDK-derived. The Altium IPCB_AcuteAngleRule exists but isn't always enabled by default and its violations only surface during DRC; this audit runs independently of rule state.

Returns: Dict with {checked, violations, items[]} where each item carries {net, layer, x_mils, y_mils, angle_deg}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the check is pure geometry with no rule dependency, describes the endpoint/dot-product algorithm, and states the 100-violation cap and per-item fields. It also implies read-only behavior through the audit framing.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, moving from purpose to rationale to algorithm to return shape. The algorithm bullets are somewhat more detail than strictly needed for invocation, but they are organized and non-repetitive.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description is complete: it conveys safety/read-only intent, explains what is checked, states a hard cap, and even names the return fields. The presence of an output schema makes the return-value explanation a bonus rather than a requirement.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find pairs of same-net tracks meeting at < 90° interior angle.' That is precise enough to separate it from sibling audits like audit_find_inconsistent_track_widths or pcb_get_clearance_violations without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('classic fab DFM check', catching fab rejection on the desk) and contrasts with the Altium IPCB_AcuteAngleRule DRC path. It stops short of explicit exclusion criteria, but the context for selecting this tool is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools