Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyEDA MCP

EasyEDA MCP

by full-aigc-plugins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

easyeda_inspect_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect the current EasyEDA project, active document, board, schematic pages, and PCB in read-only mode; empty projects return no_project.

Instructions

只读当前工程、活动文档、板子、原理图页和 PCB；空工程明确返回 no_project。

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": "easyeda_inspect_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionNosession.list 返回的实际会话 ID；多会话时必须指定

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful edge-case disclosure not present in structured fields: an empty project explicitly returns no_project, telling the agent how to interpret a null-ish response.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource list and appends the empty-project behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the punctuation-separated list is slightly dense.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail needn't be explained, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. The description covers scope and the empty-project case, leaving only usage routing unaddressed.

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%, so the single session parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

The description states a specific verb (只读/read-only inspect) and enumerates the resources covered: current project, active document, board, schematic page, and PCB. It is clearly distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like easyeda_list_components or easyeda_read_netlist, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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 (use this to orient yourself in the current project context) but never stated explicitly, and no when-not-to-use or alternative is given. The mention of multi-session requirements lives in the schema, not the description.

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