easyeda-mcp-pro

Get board features

easyeda_board_features

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count board features in an EasyEDA Pro project, separating copper pour zones from native fills and regions for accurate PCB inspection.

Instructions

Get counts of board features. zones counts copper Pour boundaries only; native Fill and Region primitives are reported separately as fills and regions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pads`	Yes
`vias`	Yes
`fills`	Yes
`zones`	Yes
`tracks`	Yes
`regions`	Yes
`components`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`not_available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 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"

addedOutput schema / properties / fills

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / regions

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "vias",
-  "tracks",
-  "zones",
-  "pads"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "vias",
+  "tracks",
+  "zones",
+  "fills",
+  "regions",
+  "pads"
+]

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real semantic disclosure beyond that: it defines what 'zones' counts (copper Pour boundaries only) versus native Fill and Region primitives, which prevents misreading the counts. It does not discuss cost, limits, or scope beyond this.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the disambiguating semantics. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description supplies the one piece of non-obvious context an agent needs — the zones/fills/regions distinction. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 0% and the single required parameter (projectId) is never mentioned in the description. However, with only one obvious identifier parameter, the description's silence is a minor gap rather than a serious one, so it sits at the baseline for a simple tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get counts of board features.' The second sentence sharpens what is being counted (zones = copper Pour boundaries only) and distinguishes those from fills and regions, which map to sibling tools easyeda_pcb_fills and easyeda_pcb_regions. It is clear, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 — this is a summary/counting tool — and the note that fills and regions are reported separately hints at when to use this versus the dedicated fill/region tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server