Skip to main content
Glama

audit_find_inconsistent_track_widths

Detect nets with track-width ratios above 2× and flag thin orphan stubs; returns each net’s min/max widths and coordinates of its thinnest segment.

Instructions

Find nets where the maximum and minimum track widths differ by more than 2×.

Classic bug pattern: a power rail (VCC / VDD / GND) is routed at 20 mil to handle the expected current, then later someone adds a connection using the editor's default 8 mil width and moves on. The result is a thin orphan stub welded to a wide bus -- under load that thin section becomes a thermal hotspot and eventually a fab rework. Most agents and human reviewers miss it because the bulk of the net looks fine.

Algorithm: per net, collect min/max track widths on signal layers. Ratio > 2.0 → flag. Per-violation reports the actual widths and the (x, y) of the thinnest track on the net so the agent can jump straight to the questionable section.

Pattern: SDK-derived. No community-script reference.

Returns: Dict with {checked, violations, items[]} where each item carries {net, min_width_mils, max_width_mils, ratio, thin_x_mils, thin_y_mils}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the exact algorithm (per-net min/max on signal layers, ratio > 2.0 → flag), the threshold, what each violation reports, and that coordinates point to the thinnest track. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/no side effects, but the 'Find' verb and reporting behavior make that clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the threshold, then explains the bug pattern, algorithm, and return shape. Slightly verbose, and the internal 'Pattern: SDK-derived. No community-script reference.' line adds no value to an invoking agent.

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?

Covers algorithm, threshold, per-item reporting fields, and a return-dict shape even though an output schema already exists. It also states scope (signal layers) and the thinnest-track coordinate target—nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to clarify; baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion because none exist.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and an exact criterion: find nets where max/min track widths differ by more than 2×. An agent can distinguish this from sibling audits like pcb_cleanup_tracks or audit_find_bad_connections just by reading the description.

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?

Gives clear context for when the check is valuable (power rails, orphan thin stubs, thermal hotspots) and notes that most reviewers miss it. However, it doesn't explicitly route the agent away from alternatives in the audit_ family or state prerequisites for running it.

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