Skip to main content
Glama

design_review_plan

Runs all plan-level checks in one offline call: stats, ERC-lite, circuit behaviour, placement constraints and net classes, so a design can be vetted before emit without Altium.

Instructions

One-call offline pre-flight: bundle every plan-level analysis.

Runs, on the plan alone (no Altium), the checks and reports the agent would otherwise call one by one, so the planner can vet a design in a single step before emit:

  • stats: part counts by kind, IC / passive split, power & ground rails, average net degree, the widest signal net (a routing hotspot).

  • erc: the ERC-lite report (floating nets, unconnected parts, missing decoupling, malformed values, matched-value mismatches); passed is False only on a hard error.

  • circuits: the computed behaviour of each recognised block (divider ratios, filter cut-offs, crystal load).

  • placement_constraints: the match / keepout groups that would be auto-derived for pcb_plan_placement(plan_json=...).

  • net_classes: each net's class (power / ground / differential / clock / analog / ... / signal) grouped for PCB net-class setup.

Returns {"ok": True, "passed": <erc.passed>, ...sections...} or {"ok": False, "errors"/"error": ...} on a schema problem.

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 carries the load well: it discloses that it runs offline, enumerates the analyses performed, and explains that 'ok' is False on schema problems while 'passed' is False only on a hard ERC error. It does not explicitly say it is read-only or non-mutating, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose and then uses a clean bulleted breakdown of the bundled analyses. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and every section earns its place.

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 multi-analysis tool, the description covers behavior, bundled checks, and failure semantics well, and an output schema exists. The main gap is the lack of any explanation of the plan_json input, which leaves the sole parameter underspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter, plan_json, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its accepted format or structure. It references plan_json indirectly in the placement section but adds no meaningful semantics about the input.

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 action and resource: 'bundle every plan-level analysis' on the plan alone with no Altium. It also gives the purpose — vetting a design in one step before emit — which distinguishes it from review tools that need a live project or file.

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 clearly frames the tool as an offline pre-flight to use before emit and says it replaces calling checks one by one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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