Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copper

Copper

by claynicholson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Routing plan analysis

pcb_route_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyse a PCB before routing to get board rules, net details, pours, keep-outs, congestion hot spots, and an editable plan for guided routing.

Instructions

Analyse the board for routing (read-only) and return what you need to write a plan for pcb_route_guided: board and rules, a net table (kind, pads, unrouted, class), pours, keep-outs, a congestion map with hot spots, and suggested_plan (the built-in heuristics as an editable plan) with plan_schema. Skip it to route with defaults. heatmap=true attaches the congestion picture. ripup='all' analyses as if all unlocked tracks were removed. Example: pcb_route_plan() -> edit suggested_plan -> pcb_route_guided(plan=...)

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": "pcb_route_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
netsNoOnly list these nets in the table (names or globs, e.g. ['/USB*','VBUS'])
ripupNonone (default) = as the board is; all = as if all unlocked tracks were ripped up
heatmapNoAttach the congestion heat-map PNG (default true)
projectNoproject path (default: active)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the valuable parts: ripup='all' analyses a counterfactual board state, heatmap=true attaches the congestion picture, and suggested_plan is returned as an editable heuristic proposal with plan_schema. It does not say anything about analysis cost or performance on large boards, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a compact enumeration of the returned payload, then short usage sentences and a one-line workflow example. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (board and rules, net table with kind/pads/unrouted/class, pours, keep-outs, congestion map, suggested_plan, plan_schema). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or consume the result 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds context for heatmap (part of the returned congestion picture) and ripup (counterfactual analysis), but says nothing extra about the nets filter beyond the schema's glob examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyse the board for routing (read-only)') and immediately frames the output as the input for writing a plan for pcb_route_guided. An agent can distinguish this analysis tool from the routing sibling without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('return what you need to write a plan for pcb_route_guided'), when-to-skip ('Skip it to route with defaults'), and a concrete call sequence ('pcb_route_plan() -> edit suggested_plan -> pcb_route_guided(plan=...)'). The alternative is named and the condition that selects it is 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