Skip to main content
Glama
Nivakaran-S

eda-agent

by Nivakaran-S
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lib_add_pins

Add multiple pins to the current symbol in a single call, replacing one-by-one pin edits and simplifying schematic symbol creation.

Instructions

Add MANY pins to the current symbol in ONE call.

PREFER THIS over adding pins one at a time (there is no singular variant). A 48-pin IC symbol built one pin at a time would be 48 LLM turns; with this tool it's one turn + one PreProcess/PostProcess + one save.

Args: pins: List of pin dicts, each with: - designator (str, required) - name (str, required) - x, y (int, mils), pin endpoint - length (int, mils, default 200) - rotation (int, default 0), 0/90/180/270 - electrical_type (str, default "passive"), one of input/output/bidirectional/passive/open_collector/ open_emitter/power/hiz/io - hidden (bool, default False) - owner_part_id (int, optional). For multi-part components (e.g. quad op-amp). 1..part_count picks a specific sub-part; 0 shares the pin across all parts (typical for V+ / V- power pins on a quad). Omit for single-part symbols. - symbol_outer_edge (str, optional). IEEE decoration on the pin's outer edge. "dot" draws the inversion bubble of an active-low pin. Omit for none. - symbol_inner_edge (str, optional). Same, inner edge. "clock" draws the clock wedge. The two are independent, so an inverted clock sets both. Either field also accepts any other TIeeeSymbol name ("schmitt", "open_collector", "active_low_input", ...) or a bare ordinal. - show_name / show_designator (bool, optional). Whether the pin's name and number are DRAWN. Different from hidden, which hides the pin itself: a resistor shows both pins and neither label. Omit to leave Altium's default.

Example, one stage of a dual op-amp (sub-part 1) with shared power pins (sub-part 0): lib_add_pins(pins=[ {"designator": "1", "name": "OUT1", "x": 0, "y": 0, "rotation": 180, "electrical_type": "output", "owner_part_id": 1}, {"designator": "2", "name": "IN1-", "x": 0, "y": 100, "rotation": 180, "electrical_type": "input", "owner_part_id": 1}, {"designator": "3", "name": "IN1+", "x": 0, "y": 200, "rotation": 180, "electrical_type": "input", "owner_part_id": 1}, {"designator": "8", "name": "V+", "x": 0, "y": 400, "rotation": 180, "electrical_type": "power", "owner_part_id": 0}, ])

Returns: Dict with added, failed, total counts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a call wraps PreProcess/PostProcess plus a save, and that results are reported as added/failed/total, implying partial success rather than all-or-nothing. It stops short of stating prerequisites (an open library and a set current symbol) or undo/rollback behavior.

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 batching rationale, then Args, then a realistic worked example — good structure. It is long, and the paragraph on symbol_outer_edge/symbol_inner_edge names every TIeeeSymbol option, which is more than most calls need, but little of it is truly wasteful.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an untyped schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: field list, defaults, enums, multi-part ownership rules, and a concrete example. An output schema exists, and the description still briefly names the returned counts, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% — the schema is just an untyped array of objects — so the description must compensate and does: it enumerates every pin-dict field with types, units, defaults, the full electrical_type enum, the 0-vs-1..part_count semantics of owner_part_id, and worked

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, resource and scope: 'Add MANY pins to the current symbol in ONE call.' The batch scope plus 'current symbol' distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools like lib_get_pin_list and lib_set_pin_owner_part.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to PREFER this over adding pins one at a time and notes there is no singular variant, which stops the agent hunting for one. It quantifies the payoff with the 48-pin example, giving concrete grounds for choosing this tool.

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