eda-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

design_lint_report

Runs consolidated schematic and PCB lint checks, optionally DRC, and returns structured JSON violation counts and per-check details for pre-release review.

Instructions

Run all design-lint checks and return a consolidated violation report.

Sequences the individual audit.* checks the way a pre-release review would: compile-gate first, then schematic-side rules, then PCB-side rules, then optional ERC/DRC. Each section's raw result is preserved so an agent can drill in; a top-level summary gives counts per check.

Returns structured JSON instead of dumping to the Messages panel (Altium's panel is fine for human review but the agent needs a machine-readable shape).

Checks executed:

component_param_visibility -- per-class parameter visibility (cap voltage, IC MPN, etc).
power_port_orientation -- ground down / rails up.
find_floating_ports -- SCH ports not connected to a pin or sheet entry.
tented_via_ratio -- PCB tented vs untented via surfaces.
find_bad_connections -- PCB tracks / arcs with dangling endpoints within bad_connection_tolerance_mils.
find_signal_vias_without_return -- PCB signal vias with no nearby ground/power via for return-current.
drc (only if run_drc=True) -- Altium's Design Rule Check, full project.

Args: run_drc: If True, also runs Altium's DRC and includes its violations. Off by default because DRC mutates the .DRC report file and can take ~5-10s on a busy board. bad_connection_tolerance_mils: Coord tolerance for find_bad_connections. Default 1.0; raise to surface only gross misalignments.

Returns: Dict with: - summary: per-check {checked, violations} (best effort -- missing/failed checks listed under _failed) - sections: per-check raw result objects under their section name - totals: overall violations count across all sections (does NOT include DRC raw count -- DRC items are listed separately because severity / fix-cost differs)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	No
`run_drc`	No
`bad_connection_tolerance_mils`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the DRC side effect on the .DRC report file, the runtime cost, best-effort semantics with failed checks surfaced under `_failed`, and the fact that `totals` excludes DRC counts. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 action and the sequencing rationale, then structured into checks/args/returns sections. The Returns block largely restates the output schema and the per-check list is verbose, but every item is concrete rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return documentation is partly redundant though it adds the meaningful caveat that totals exclude DRC. Combined with the detailed check inventory and the DRC cost/side-effect warning, the only real hole is the undocumented `checks` parameter.

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 compensate. It thoroughly documents `run_drc` and `bad_connection_tolerance_mils` (default 1.0, raise to surface only gross misalignments), but the `checks` array parameter is never mentioned — the 'Checks executed' list reads as a fixed sequence, leaving it unclear whether an agent can subset the checks.

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 and resource ('Run all design-lint checks and return a consolidated violation report') plus the ordering model (compile-gate, schematic, PCB, optional ERC/DRC). That clearly separates it from the single-purpose siblings like audit_find_bad_connections or pcb_run_drc, which it composes.

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 a clear usage context ('the way a pre-release review would') and a conditional rule for run_drc (off by default because it mutates the .DRC report file and takes ~5-10s). It does not explicitly name the alternative to use when an agent wants a single check, leaving the drill-in path implicit in 'raw result is preserved so an agent can drill in'.

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

Deploy Server