Skip to main content
Glama

design_describe_circuits

Recognizes divider, RC filter, and crystal-load blocks in a design plan and computes ratios, cut-off frequencies, and load capacitance to verify intended behavior and catch wrong values.

Instructions

Report the electrical behaviour of each recognised sub-circuit.

Recognises the parametric blocks in a DesignPlan (voltage / feedback dividers, RC low/high-pass filters, crystal load networks) and computes each one's characteristic from the chosen component values: a divider's ratio, a filter's cut-off, a crystal's load capacitance. Use it to verify a block does what you intended -- it catches the wrong-but-consistent value error (a divider of two valid resistors that produces the wrong ratio) that connectivity and equality checks miss.

Most parameters are ratios / time-constants that need only the values, not a supply voltage, so this works on the plan alone. No Altium.

Returns {"ok": True, "circuits": [{motif, parts, summary, params}]}; blocks whose values are missing or unparseable are skipped.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it describes computation over the plan, notes that no supply voltage or Altium is needed, gives the return structure, and explains that missing or unparseable blocks are skipped. It still does not explicitly state read-only/no-mutation behavior, but the overall behavior is 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and most sentences add useful information about recognized blocks, verification value, assumptions, and skipped blocks. It is somewhat longer than necessary, especially since an output schema exists, but it remains well organized.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, recognized circuit types, computation, usage context, plan-only operation, and skip behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit plan_json structure and mutation-safety wording.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does identify the input as a DesignPlan containing component values, but it does not describe the accepted plan_json format, required fields, or whether a JSON string versus object is expected.

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: report the electrical behavior of each recognized sub-circuit and compute characteristics from component values. It also distinguishes the tool from connectivity/equality checks by explaining the wrong-but-consistent value error it catches.

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 clear usage context: use it to verify that a parametric block does what was intended. It also clarifies that it works from the DesignPlan alone and does not need Altium, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use 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