Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Pro

KiCad MCP Pro

by Valxyria
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

variant_diff_bom

Compare the effective bills of materials of two PCB design variants to identify component differences and prevent assembly errors.

Instructions

Diff the effective BOM between two design variants.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "variant_a": "<variant_a>",
      "variant_b": "<variant_b>"
    },
    "name": "variant_diff_bom"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variant_aYes
variant_bYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what 'effective BOM' includes (e.g., supplier alternatives), or any side effects. 'Diff' implies a read operation but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that conveys the core function with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter diff tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the operation is straightforward, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits contextual details like whether the variants must belong to the same design/project, which an agent might need to know.

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 0%, and the description only loosely maps the parameters to 'two design variants.' It does not clarify the required format for variant_a and variant_b (e.g., names, IDs) or how to reference them, leaving the agent to infer from parameter titles.

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 clearly states the action ('Diff'), the object ('effective BOM'), and the scope ('between two design variants'), which distinguishes it from sibling BOM export tools like variant_export_bom.

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 usage context is implied—when comparing BOMs between two variants—but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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