Skip to main content
Glama

proj_annotate

Annotate schematic designators programmatically without dialogs: compiles the project, sorts unlocked components by chosen order, and assigns sequential R1, R2, C1 prefixes per sheet with undo support.

Instructions

Annotate schematic designators programmatically, no dialog, no user interaction.

Compiles the project, iterates every schematic sheet, collects all unlocked components, sorts them by the chosen order, and assigns sequential designators per alpha prefix (R1, R2, ... C1, C2, ... U1, U2, ...). Designator prefixes are preserved from the current value (e.g., "R?" or "R13" both keep the "R" prefix). Locked designators (Designator.IsLocked = True) are skipped. All changes are wrapped in SchServer.ProcessControl.PreProcess/PostProcess for undo support.

Args: order: Annotation traversal order: "down_then_across" (default: row-major top-to-bottom, left-to-right) "up_then_across" (row-major bottom-to-top, left-to-right) "across_then_down" (column-major left-to-right, top-to-bottom) "across_then_up" (column-major left-to-right, bottom-to-top) "none" (reset all designators to "?")

Returns: Dictionary with: - success: True - order: the order that was applied - renamed: count of components renumbered - reset: count reset to "?" (only for order="none") - skipped_locked: count of locked components left untouched - documents_processed: count of schematic sheets visited - programmatic: True (marks this as the non-interactive path)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderNodown_then_across

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it describes compilation, sheet iteration, prefix preservation, locked-designator skipping, undo wrapping via PreProcess/PostProcess, and reset behavior. It also documents the return fields, including counts for renamed, reset, and skipped components.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into clear behavior, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information about side effects, parameters, or output counts.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the definition is complete: it explains the process, side effects, undo support, parameter modes, and return values. The existence of an output schema makes the detailed return section extra, but not harmful.

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%, so the description must explain the sole parameter, and it does: all five allowed order values are enumerated with clear traversal semantics, including the special 'none' reset mode. This is more than the schema provides.

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: annotate schematic designators programmatically with no dialog. It is immediately clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as sch_increment_designators or proj_lock_designator.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies automated/batch use through 'programmatically, no dialog, no user interaction,' but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over related designator tools or when not to use it. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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