easyeda-mcp-pro

Get board dimensions

easyeda_board_dimensions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get PCB board outline dimensions, shape, and mounting hole data from an EasyEDA Pro project to verify fit and enclosure compatibility.

Instructions

Get the PCB board outline dimensions, shape, and mounting hole information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`shape`	No
`area_mm2`	No
`width_mm`	No
`height_mm`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`has_outline`	Yes
`not_available`	No
`mounting_hole_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.2Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / has_outline
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "mounting_hole_count"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "mounting_hole_count",
+  "has_outline"
+]

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope of returned content (dimensions, shape, mounting holes) but says nothing about units, coordinate systems, or behavior when a board outline is undefined. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is arguably too terse to cover the parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, for a tool whose only input is an undocumented projectId, the description leaves the caller without guidance on the identifier, keeping it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 schema has one required parameter (projectId) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it or clarifies what form the project identifier takes. Contrasted with the zero-parameter baseline of 4, a single undocumented required param that the description ignores is a real gap.

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 (Get) and resource (PCB board outline dimensions, shape, mounting hole info), which is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like board_layers, board_stackup, and board_features. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as easyeda_board_features or easyeda_pcb_components, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer its place from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server