Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
circuit-agent

circuit-agent

by mo9652962-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calculate_bare_board_test_parameters

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan IPC-9252B bare-board electrical test recipes (flying probe or bed-of-nails universal grid): establishes continuity thresholds (signal <= 10Ω, power <= 2Ω) and isolation test voltages (Class 1: 50V, Class 2: 100V, Class 3: 250V)…

Instructions

Plan IPC-9252B bare-board electrical test recipes (flying probe or bed-of-nails universal grid): establishes continuity thresholds (signal <= 10Ω, power <= 2Ω) and isolation test voltages (Class 1: 50V, Class 2: 100V, Class 3: 250V), automatically derating test voltages to 100V on fine-pitch (<0.100mm) or sensitive RF nets to prevent dielectric breakdown arc-over damage.

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": "calculate_bare_board_test_parameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
netsNoOptional list of net dicts ({name, min_clearance_mm, is_power, is_sensitive}).
tester_typeNoTest equipment: 'flying_probe' (default) or 'universal_grid'.flying_probe
target_classNoIPC reliability class: 'Class 1', 'Class 2' (default), or 'Class 3'.Class 2
has_sensitive_rf_netsNoWhether board contains sensitive RF/microwave nets (default: False).
min_trace_clearance_mmNoMinimum conductor clearance on board in mm (default: 0.127).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful domain behavior beyond annotations: continuity thresholds, class-dependent isolation voltages, and automatic derating to 100V on fine-pitch or sensitive RF nets to prevent arc-over damage.

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?

The description is a single dense but front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical thresholds and derating rule earn their place, though the sentence is somewhat long and could be easier to scan if split.

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 read-only planning tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core domain rules needed to call it correctly. It does not describe the returned recipe shape or how omitted optional nets affect defaults, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds meaningful domain semantics by tying thresholds to signal versus power nets, voltages to target class, and derating to fine-pitch clearance and sensitive RF nets.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Plan IPC-9252B bare-board electrical test recipes' for flying probe or bed-of-nails universal grid. It is clearly not a generic PCB calculation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as calculate_ict_testpoints.

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 by the planning context and the tester_type/target_class parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent can infer the domain but must decide on its own versus sibling PCB test/audit tools.

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