Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchy-mcp

sketchy-mcp

by ddkbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_parts

Locate boards, sensors, displays, and LEDs by keyword or type; enter an exact part type to list its pins for wiring and component selection.

Instructions

Search the part library (boards, sensors, displays, LEDs, …). With an exact type it lists the part's pins.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesType or keywords, e.g. 'arduino-uno', 'distance sensor', 'oled'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a conditional behavior — result shape changes when the query is an exact type (pins are returned) — which goes beyond the schema. But it omits matching semantics (fuzzy vs substring vs exact), result limits, and what a keyword search actually returns, all of which matter for a search tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the conditional behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain, the input mode distinction, and the special pin-listing behavior. The remaining gap is the unspecified return shape in keyword mode and matching strictness, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining that the same 'query' field has two modes: an exact type triggers pin listing, while looser keywords presumably yield plain matches. That is meaningful semantics beyond the schema's example list.

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 and resource ('Search the part library') and enumerates the domain with concrete examples (boards, sensors, displays, LEDs). It is immediately distinguishable from all listed siblings (sketch, find_image, locate, model_*), so no explicit sibling differentiation is needed.

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 clause 'With an exact type it lists the part's pins' implies a usage pattern: pass a precise part type when you want pin data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on keyword vs exact-type queries, and no mention of what to do if nothing matches. Usage is inferable rather than 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