Skip to main content
Glama

footprint_check_package

Check a package description for impossible or unusual numbers before drawing a footprint, flagging impossible dimensions and IPC versus vendor land pattern mismatches as likely transcription errors.

Instructions

Check a package description for numbers that cannot be right.

Run this on every package transcribed from a datasheet, before drawing a footprint from it. Offline.

Sanity checks (each finding names the dimensions, their values and citations, and why the combination is impossible or unusual): limits in order; lead width below the pitch; each row of pins fits the body it comes out of; lead span larger than the body for leaded parts; the foot shorter than the lead's reach and two terminals fitting the span; the exposed pad inside the body and clear of the terminals; ball diameter below the pitch; values 25.4 times off their neighbours (mils typed as mm); pin counts the family can have; the vendor land pattern consistent with itself. error is impossible, warning unusual.

Cross-check, when the package carries the datasheet's recommended land pattern as vendor: the IPC pattern computed from the package against it, per quantity (pitch, span, land length and width, tab, exposed pad, grid land), with both numbers, both citations and the difference. Beyond the tolerance measured between real vendor patterns and IPC, or a factor of two apart, the pair is reported as a likely transcription error in one of the two sources.

Args: package: the PackageSpec as an object or JSON text, the same schema lib_create_footprint_from_package takes.

Returns: {ok, errors, warnings, findings, cross_check, examined, notes}. ok is true when no sanity finding is an error and the cross-check (if it ran) agreed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is offline, enumerates the sanity checks performed, explains error versus warning severity, defines the cross-check tolerance logic, and specifies the `ok` result semantics.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then organized into sanity checks, cross-check behavior, Args, and Returns. It is somewhat long and dense, but the length is largely justified by the complexity of the checks and output semantics.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains the input format, the checks performed, cross-check behavior, and the returned fields including `ok`, `errors`, `warnings`, `findings`, and `cross_check`.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the single `package` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does by stating that the parameter accepts a PackageSpec as an object or JSON text and by referencing the same schema used by `lib_create_footprint_from_package`, though it does not enumerate the PackageSpec fields directly.

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: check a package description for impossible numbers. It clearly scopes the tool as an offline sanity checker to run before drawing a footprint, which distinguishes it from sibling footprint creation and rendering tools.

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 explicit usage timing: run on every package transcribed from a datasheet, before drawing a footprint. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives such as lib_audit_footprint_vs_package, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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