fritzing-mcp

Fritzing Check

fritzing_check

Validate Fritzing sketches for unique model indexes, resolvable module IDs, view instances, and wire connector endpoints before handoff or GUI opening.

Instructions

Validate a sketch: unique modelIndexes, resolvable moduleIds, every instance has >= 1 view, every wire endpoint connector exists on its target. MUST pass before handing a design off or opening it in the GUI.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "fritzing_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it enumerates the four validation classes and frames the tool as a blocking gate. It leaves implicit that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, and says nothing about failure reporting, but the output schema absorbs the return-value burden.

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 sentences, dense and front-loaded: the validation criteria come first, then the required-action precondition. No filler whatsoever.

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 validation gate with an output schema present, the description supplies the necessary criteria and the handoff precondition. The only real hole is the meaning of the 'file' input, which a one-clause note would have closed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single 'file' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says whether 'file' is a filesystem path, a sketch name, or an ID, nor what format is expected.

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 (Validate) and resource (a sketch) and enumerates the exact invariants checked, which separates it from the sibling fritzing_validate_part. An agent can tell immediately this is the whole-sketch gate, not a per-part check.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"MUST pass before handing a design off or opening it in the GUI" gives a concrete precondition that pairs with the sibling fritzing_open_gui. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or stating what to do on failure, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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

Deploy Server