eda-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lib_easyeda_search

Searches LCSC/EasyEDA for part candidates by MPN, keyword, or description, returning lcsc_id values to pass on for import when you need a footprint.

Instructions

Search LCSC / EasyEDA for parts by MPN or description.

EXPECT THIS TO FAIL, and NOT because of credentials. Checked against the live service: the search route answers 404/403 with an HTML error page and no auth challenge, component fetch on the SAME host still works with no credentials, LCSC's own search API returns an error body, and the LCSC results page is rendered client-side (fetching it yields zero part numbers). There is no endpoint left to log in to, so no cookie, token or account will restore this.

Search is therefore a BROWSER task, which also keeps it per-user: each person searches LCSC in their own signed-in browser, and no shared credential is ever stored by this server. Take the part number from there and import by id, which is unaffected: lib_easyeda_import(lcsc_id="C1234", ...).

Online. Returns candidates only, no geometry: pick an lcsc_id and pass it to lib_easyeda_import. HTTPS-only with a host allowlist; override endpoints with EASYEDA_API_BASE.

Args: query: MPN, keyword, or description fragment. limit: max candidates (default 20).

Returns: {"ok": true, "count": N, "results": [{lcsc_id, mpn, manufacturer, package, description}]}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 29, 2026

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 discloses concrete failure modes (404/403 HTML, no auth challenge, client-side rendering), credential handling, HTTPS-only host allowlist, endpoint override, and return shape. This goes well beyond ordinary transparency and prevents futile credential troubleshooting.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The critical warning is front-loaded, but the middle diagnostic paragraph is lengthy for a tool the agent is told not to call. The live-service evidence could be compressed while preserving the decision guidance, so structure is clear but not optimally concise.

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 no annotations, a two-parameter schema with no field descriptions, and a tool that should generally be avoided, the definition supplies failure context, alternative workflow, argument meanings, and return shape. Nothing material is missing for correct agent behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description defines both parameters: query is an MPN/keyword/description fragment, and limit is the maximum candidate count with a default of 20. It also documents the returned fields, fully compensating for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: search LCSC/EasyEDA for parts by MPN or description. The LCSC/EasyEDA scope distinguishes it somewhat, but it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling search tools such as lib_search, part_search, or lib_dblib_search.

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 says to expect failure and that search is a browser task, then directs the agent to take the resulting part number and import it via lib_easyeda_import. This is unusually clear when-not-to-use and alternative-path guidance.

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

Deploy Server