eda-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pcb_place_tracks

Place multiple PCB track segments in one IPC round-trip to route full nets, lay stitch patterns, replicate motifs, or draw keepout rectangles, returning placed and failed counts.

Instructions

Place many track segments on the active PCB in ONE IPC round-trip.

PREFER THIS over placing one segment at a time whenever you have more than one segment to place. The whole batch is wrapped in a single PreProcess/PostProcess and a single save, so 50 tracks take roughly the same wall time as 1. Typical uses: routing a full net, laying down a whole stitch pattern, replicating a motif, drawing a keepout rectangle.

Args: tracks: List of track dicts. Each dict supports: x1, y1, x2, y2 (required, mils; decimals are kept) width (default 10, mils; decimals are kept, so a 0.1 mm rule stays 3.937), layer (default "TopLayer"), net_name (optional, empty = no net)

Example:
    [
      {"x1": 5010, "y1": 4785, "x2": 5070, "y2": 4785,
       "width": 10, "net_name": "NetC8_2"},
      {"x1": 5070, "y1": 4785, "x2": 5070, "y2": 4862,
       "width": 10, "net_name": "NetC8_2"},
    ]

Returns: Dictionary with "placed" and "failed" counts

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tracks`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description steps up well: it discloses the single PreProcess/PostProcess wrapper, a single save, and the resulting near-constant wall time. It also surfaces that failures are counted ('failed'), hinting at partial success. It stops short of stating whether a batch is atomic, whether permission/DRC checks apply, or whether regions must be repoured afterwards.

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 imperative and the batch-vs-single decision, then args, then example – good ordering. Slightly verbose: the wall-time rationale and a two-entry example run longer than strictly necessary, though both do add practical value.

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?

Covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: units, defaults, required vs optional keys, an example, and a return summary (with an output schema also present). For a one-parameter batch-write tool this is sufficient to call safely on the first try.

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 an untyped array of opaque objects – so the description carries the full burden and does: it names every per-track key (x1, y1, x2, y2 required; width default 10; layer default "TopLayer"; net_name optional with empty = no net), specifies mils as the unit, notes decimals are preserved with a worked mm-to-mil example, and supplies a sample payload.

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 ('Place many track segments on the active PCB') plus a scoping mechanism ('in ONE IPC round-trip'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-segment placement, which the description calls out explicitly.

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?

Gives a direct routing rule ('PREFER THIS over placing one segment at a time whenever you have more than one segment to place') and then enumerates four concrete use cases (full net routing, stitch pattern, motif replication, keepout rectangle). An agent knows exactly when to pick this tool over iterating a single-placement call.

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

Deploy Server