Skip to main content
Glama

sch_set_component_unique_id

Stamps every schematic symbol matching a designator with the same UniqueId so multi-gate sub-parts remain one physical footprint, then verifies each write.

Instructions

Set UniqueId on every placed symbol with this designator.

ECO treats sub-parts of a multi-gate symbol (quad comparator, dual op-amp) as one physical footprint only when they share UniqueId. Four copies of part 1 with four UniqueIds become four packages.

EVERY MATCHING SYMBOL IS STAMPED, not the first. Sharing the id is the whole point of the property, so writing one of three and reporting success left the other two pointing at packages of their own, which is the exact condition this repairs.

Altium mints UniqueIds itself and may keep its own. Each write is read back and COMPARED; if any symbol kept its old id the call fails and names which ones, because a partial stamp still leaves the device split.

Args: designator: Component reference as drawn (e.g. "U_COMP2B"). unique_id: Target UniqueId, usually copied from the A unit.

Returns: Dict with success, designator, unique_id, symbols_written, symbols_found, and per-symbol locations with the id each reads back.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unique_idYes
designatorYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: every matching symbol is written, each write is read back and compared, partial success fails the call, and Altium may retain its own UniqueIds. This is unusually thorough for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 the action and the rationale, and every paragraph adds useful behavioral detail. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but the repeated capitalization and structured Args/Returns sections keep it navigable.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, write semantics, verification behavior, failure conditions, and parameter meaning. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: designator is described as the reference as drawn with an example, and unique_id is described as the target copy typically taken from the A unit. Both required parameters are given clear semantics and practical context.

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: stamp every placed symbol sharing a designator with a target UniqueId. It clearly distinguishes this repair operation from related schematic tools by explaining the multi-gate symbol consolidation semantics.

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?

It explains exactly when to use this tool — when sub-parts of a multi-gate symbol need to share one physical footprint — and why partial stamping is insufficient. The use case is concrete and actionable.

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