Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibe-hardware-mcp

vibe-hardware-mcp

by calligraphysystems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

calligraphy_list_gallery_boards

Lists 13 fully routed open-source PCB benchmark boards with zero native KiCad copper DRC violations and their available 1-click sample demo IDs.

Instructions

List the 13 conquered open-source PCB benchmark boards (100.0% routed, 0 native KiCad copper DRC violations) and available 1-click sample demo IDs ('2l_rp2040', '2l_stickhub', '4l_carrier').

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "calligraphy_list_gallery_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the list contains 13 boards with 100% routing and zero native KiCad copper DRC violations, and names sample demo IDs, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination, return structure, or whether the list is static.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with concrete counts, quality metrics, and example IDs. The wording is dense but mostly earns its place; 'conquered' is slightly quirky but not confusing.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned: board identities, validation status, and demo IDs. It could be more complete about exact return shape or ordering, but it is adequate for invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning and instead describes returned board/demo content.

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 ('List') and precise resources ('13 conquered open-source PCB benchmark boards' plus 'available 1-click sample demo IDs'), with concrete examples. It is clearly a gallery/listing tool rather than a routing or compile tool, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to discover benchmark boards or demo IDs before selecting one for routing/compilation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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