easyeda-mcp-pro

Run design rule check

easyeda_drc_run

Idempotent

Run PCB design rule checks (DRC) in EasyEDA Pro and refresh its visible DRC panel. Requires a focused PCB document; returns coarse severity counts, with per-violation detail staying in EasyEDA Pro.

Instructions

Run EasyEDA Pro's native PCB DRC and refresh its visible DRC panel. Requires a PCB document to be focused; otherwise returns an indeterminate not_available result with an actionable focus error. Returns coarse severity counts; per-violation detail stays in EasyEDA Pro.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rules`	No
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`passed`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`violations`	Yes
`error_count`	Yes
`not_available`	No
`warning_count`	Yes
`total_violations`	Yes

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 / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / passed / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / passed / type
```
Removed value: -"boolean"
```

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the focus prerequisite, the not_available failure mode, and the fact that only coarse severity counts come back while per-violation detail stays inside EasyEDA Pro. It does not explain the non-read-only side effect beyond 'refreshing the panel'.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the return-shape caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 the description is not obligated to spell out return values, and it usefully notes the coarse-count limitation. However, the two input parameters, especially the 'rules' override array, are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to use the tool's filtering capability confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter, including the required projectId or the optional 'rules' filter array. With zero documentation in the schema, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 a specific verb+resource: running EasyEDA Pro's native PCB DRC and refreshing the visible DRC panel. This is clearly distinguishable from neighboring diagnostic tools such as easyeda_pcb_constraint_check and easyeda_rule_check_summary.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Requires a PCB document to be focused') and the consequence of not meeting it (indeterminate not_available with a focus error). It does not name or exclude sibling alternatives like pcb_constraint_check, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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

Deploy Server