Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyEDA Pro MCP

EasyEDA Pro MCP

by VLab-Software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Find unconnected pins

easyeda_find_unconnected_pins
Read-only

Scans active schematic sheets to find unconnected component pins and reports dangling inputs or potential omissions, optionally filtering by component designator.

Instructions

Scans active schematic sheets for unconnected component pins, reporting potential schematic omissions or dangling inputs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNoOptional component designator filter.
allPagesNo
timeoutMsNo
includeRawNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / properties / includePowerPins
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": true,
-  "description": "When false, suppress pins whose names look like power pins.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / includeRaw / default
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional component designator filter.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that scanning is scoped to 'active schematic sheets', which is useful, but it does not explain the result format, how the limit truncates findings, or why idempotentHint is false for a pure scan.

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?

One tight sentence with the scanning action front-loaded and the diagnostic value trailing. No padding, though it compresses away details an agent would need.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters at 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations describing returns, the description should clarify what a 'report' contains and how paging/limits interact. It leaves the return shape and parameter behavior entirely unspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%: only `query` is documented. The description says nothing about `limit`, `allPages` (which notably defaults to true and thus blurs the 'active sheets' claim), `timeoutMs`, or `includeRaw`, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: scanning active schematic sheets for unconnected component pins. It is distinguishable from neighbors like easyeda_verify_connections or easyeda_run_schematic_erc, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase about 'reporting potential schematic omissions or dangling inputs' implies a schematic QA use case before ERC, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over easyeda_run_schematic_erc or easyeda_verify_connections, and no exclusions 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