Copper

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Design review

design_review

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reviews schematic netlists and boards to catch issues that pass ERC but break real boards—decoupling, pull-ups, USB-C CC resistors, floating enable pins, sourcing. Read-only, with a fix for each finding.

Instructions

Engineering review of the schematic netlist (and the board, if any): catches what passes ERC but kills boards. Decoupling, I2C pull-ups, crystal load caps, USB-C CC resistors, USB ESD, regulator caps and feedback-divider voltage, floating EN/RESET/BOOT pins, LED resistors, undriven rails, part sourcing (+ the fab's assembly-class fee), missing footprints, label typos, thin power-path tracks, thermal pads without vias. Read-only. Each finding has a fix. checks: subset of the enum (default all but schematic_style). Example: design_review(checks=['decoupling','usb_c_cc'])

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": "design_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	max findings returned (default 40)
`checks`	No
`project`	No	project path (default: active)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.1Nov 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / checks / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "decoupling",
-  "i2c_pullups",
-  "crystal_caps",
-  "usb_c_cc",
-  "usb_esd",
-  "regulator_caps",
-  "enable_pins",
-  "led_resistors",
-  "power_flags",
-  "sourcing",
-  "footprints",
-  "single_pin_nets",
-  "net_names",
-  "regulator_setpoint",
-  "power_path",
-  "thermal_pad"
-]New value: +[
+  "decoupling",
+  "i2c_pullups",
+  "crystal_caps",
+  "usb_c_cc",
+  "usb_esd",
+  "regulator_caps",
+  "enable_pins",
+  "led_resistors",
+  "power_flags",
+  "sourcing",
+  "footprints",
+  "single_pin_nets",
+  "net_names",
+  "regulator_setpoint",
+  "power_path",
+  "thermal_pad",
+  "schematic_style"
+]

First observedv1.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), and the description adds useful behavior: findings are actionable ('Each finding has a `fix`') and the default check set is 'all but schematic_style'. The 'Read-only' sentence merely restates annotations, but the rest adds genuine context.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement, then a dense enumeration of check categories, then invocation facts and an example. The long list of failure modes is justified by the tool's breadth, though it is close to unpacked keyword dumping rather than structured prose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only tells us findings carry a `fix`; it does not characterize severity levels, ordering, or how results are grouped, which matters for a review tool with up to 40 findings. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only analysis tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at result shape.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description contributes the key semantic the schema omits: `checks` is a subset of the enum defaulting to everything except schematic_style, plus a concrete example invocation. `limit` and `project` defaults are already in the schema, so those add nothing beyond it.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource ('Engineering review of the schematic netlist (and the board, if any)') and enumerates the exact failure classes it catches, so an agent knows precisely what domain it covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-scoped `verify` sibling, leaving a small ambiguity about which review tool to pick.

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 rather than stated: 'catches what passes ERC but kills boards' hints at post-ERC, pre-fab timing, and the example call shows the `checks` filter in action. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to `verify` or `board_build` as the alternative path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.