Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
circuit-agent

circuit-agent

by mo9652962-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

audit_ipc6012_class_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audits PCB design compliance with IPC-6012E and IPC-A-600J Class 1/2/3, evaluating annular rings, PTH copper plating, conductor width, and solder mask dams.

Instructions

Audit PCB physical and metallurgical design parameters against IPC-6012E and IPC-A-600J Class 1/2/3 acceptance criteria: evaluates external/internal annular rings, zero-breakout constraints for Class 3, PTH copper barrel plating thickness (avg >= 25μm for Class 3), etch conductor width reduction, and solder mask dam widths.

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": "audit_ipc6012_class_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_classNoTarget IPC reliability class: 'Class 1', 'Class 2' (default), or 'Class 3'.Class 2
has_hole_breakoutNoWhether drill hole breakout from annular ring is observed (strictly 0° allowed in Class 3).
breakout_angle_degNoObserved breakout angle in degrees (default: 0.0).
avg_copper_barrel_umNoAverage electroplated copper thickness in PTH barrels in μm (default: 22.0).
min_copper_barrel_umNoMinimum thin-point PTH copper plating thickness in μm (default: 19.0).
min_solder_mask_dam_mmNoSmallest solder mask dam width between adjacent exposed pads in mm (default: 0.090).
external_annular_ring_mmNoSmallest external annular ring width in mm (default: 0.125).
internal_annular_ring_mmNoSmallest internal annular ring width in mm (default: 0.100).
conductor_width_reduction_pctNoConductor width reduction percentage from etch defects (default: 5.0).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context by naming the specific design parameters evaluated and key Class 3 thresholds (zero breakout, avg copper >= 25μm), though it omits how results are reported.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the purpose and evaluated criteria without filler. It is dense but every clause earns its place; minor run-on quality keeps it from a 5.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It clearly enumerates what gets audited, though it does not describe the return format, which is a minor gap for an audit tool with no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying parameters to acceptance thresholds, e.g., 'zero-breakout constraints for Class 3' and 'avg >= 25μm for Class 3', which clarify how inputs are evaluated.

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 the specific verb 'Audit' and resource 'PCB physical and metallurgical design parameters against IPC-6012E and IPC-A-600J Class 1/2/3 acceptance criteria', distinguishing it from sibling audits like calculate_ipc2221_clearance and audit_fab_capabilities. An agent can tell exactly what standard and class scope it covers.

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?

Provides clear context: use for IPC-6012E/IPC-A-600J class compliance auditing of PCB design parameters. It does not explicitly name when to choose it over sibling audits or when not to use it, so exclusions are absent.

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