Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mouser-mcp

mouser-mcp

by bradford-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Look up Mouser parts by part number

get_parts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Looks up Mouser or manufacturer part numbers, including up to 200 BOM items, and returns stock, lead time, lifecycle, RoHS, pricing, compliance and links; unmatched numbers are listed in notFound.

Instructions

Looks up one or many Mouser or manufacturer part numbers (up to 200, e.g. a BOM) and returns compact summaries: stock, lead time, lifecycle, RoHS, pricing, compliance and links. Part numbers that match nothing are listed in notFound. Lookups are batched 10 per Mouser call. datasheetUrl is included only when Mouser provides one, which it often doesn't; productUrl links to the Mouser page, which has the datasheet.

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": {
      "partNumbers": "<partNumbers>"
    },
    "name": "get_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exactNoExact matches only. Default false.
partNumbersYes
manufacturerNoExact Mouser manufacturer name (see list_manufacturers).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partsYes
failedYes
notFoundYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: batching at 10 per upstream Mouser call, unmatched numbers surfaced in a separate notFound list, and the caveat that datasheetUrl is frequently absent with productUrl as fallback. That last detail materially changes how an agent should interpret a result, and it is not in the annotations or schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is looked up and how many, followed by the return shape and the datasheet caveat. No filler, though the datasheet/productUrl sentence runs long and could be tightened.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields and the notFound escape hatch, which is helpful for planning. It omits error behavior and any rate limiting on the batched upstream calls, but nothing an agent needs to form a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% and the description clarifies that entries may be either Mouser numbers or manufacturer part numbers, which the 3–40 char string schema does not convey. The 'exact' and 'manufacturer' parameters are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 ('looks up') and resource ('Mouser or manufacturer part numbers') with scope (up to 200, BOM-sized batches), which is enough to separate it from keyword-based siblings. It never names search_parts as the contrasting alternative, so the differentiation is implied by 'part number' rather than stated.

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 'e.g. a BOM' phrasing implies the bulk-lookup scenario, and 'one or many' signals both single and batch use. However there is no explicit when-not guidance — nothing tells the agent to prefer search_parts when it only has keywords or a partial number, nor what the 'exact' flag changes in practice.

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