Skip to main content
Glama

design_compose_netlist

Apply multiple schematic authoring operations to a design plan in one call, threading each result into the next and validating once to build a complete board efficiently.

Instructions

Apply many authoring operations to a plan in ONE call.

The bulk form of the authoring primitives -- the same reason you prefer a batch Altium tool over looping the singular one. Instead of one round-trip per part/block/bus, pass an ordered list and this threads the plan through all of them, then validates once. Each operation sees the previous one's result, so a part added early is available to a bus wired later. Build a whole board in a single call.

Args: plan_json: the DesignPlan as a JSON string or dict. operations: ordered list of op dicts, each with an "op" key:

    * ``{"op": "add_part", "refdes", "lib_ref", "connections",
      ...}`` -- plus any optional add-part field (``value``,
      ``footprint``, ``lib_path``, ``power_nets``,
      ``ground_nets``, ``net_roles``, ...).
    * ``{"op": "add_block", "block", "params"}`` -- see
      ``design_list_circuit_blocks`` for each block's params.
    * ``{"op": "connect_bus", "endpoints", "net_names"?,
      "net_prefix"?, "start_index"?}``.

Returns: {ok, plan, added: {refdes, nets, extended_nets}, notes, validation} for the FINAL plan -- same shape as the single-op tools. On a bad operation, {ok: False, errors: [...]} where the message names the failing operation's index.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_jsonYes
operationsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: ordered execution, each operation seeing the previous result, one validation pass, and an error shape naming the failing operation index. It omits atomicity/rollback behavior on partial failure and whether the input plan is mutated, which matters for an authoring tool.

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 core action and batching rationale are front-loaded, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. A few phrases such as 'same reason you prefer a batch Altium tool' and 'Build a whole board in a single call' are somewhat redundant but do not overwhelm the definition.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and a minimal input schema, the description supplies operation-level shape, execution order, validation timing, and return/error format. Remaining gaps are atomicity semantics and full nested parameter details, but the output schema helps cover return values.

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 carry parameter meaning; it defines plan_json and operations structure, enumerates add_part/add_block/connect_bus op keys, lists optional add_part fields, and points to design_list_circuit_blocks. It leaves some nested shapes such as connections, endpoints, and net_names unspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply many authoring operations to a plan in ONE call,' and frames itself as the 'bulk form of the authoring primitives.' This clearly distinguishes it from singular siblings such as design_add_part and design_connect_bus.

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 explicitly says to use this instead of 'one round-trip per part/block/bus' and contrasts batching with looping the singular tools. It does not state when a single-op tool or a validation-only tool would be preferable, so exclusions are absent.

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