easyeda-mcp-pro

Review observed engineering evidence

easyeda_engineering_review

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads PCB inspection evidence and summarizes existing constraint rules with stable findings, source provenance, and explicit unknowns for engineering review.

Instructions

Read PCB inspection evidence and summarize existing constraint rules with stable findings, source provenance and explicit unknowns. Does not execute ERC, DRC, design writes or exports, and cannot approve fabrication.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "easyeda_engineering_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groups`	Yes
`runtime`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`pcb_context`	Yes
`observations`	Yes
`input_evidence`	Yes
`overall_status`	Yes
`source_version`	Yes
`engineering_sign_off`	Yes
`human_review_required`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.19.8Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by clarifying that no checks are executed and no fabrication approval is granted, and by characterizing the output as stable findings with provenance and explicit unknowns. It stops short of stating cost, latency, or whether the evidence snapshot can be stale.

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 sentences, zero waste: the positive capability comes first and the negative scope second, so the agent learns both what it gets and what it will not get up front.

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 the description does not need to explain return values, and it already covers the read-only boundary and evidence semantics. The only missing piece for a review tool is any hint about scope or freshness of the observed evidence, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is a single required parameter, projectId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what project identifier to supply or how it is obtained. For a one-parameter tool this is a minor gap, so baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a penalty.

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 pair: 'Read PCB inspection evidence and summarize existing constraint rules.' The output ingredients (stable findings, source provenance, explicit unknowns) sharpen what kind of summary it produces, which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like easyeda_pcb_constraint_report or easyeda_rule_check_summary, though it never names 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The second sentence draws a clear boundary: it does not execute ERC, DRC, design writes or exports, and cannot approve fabrication. That implicitly routes the agent to easyeda_erc_run / easyeda_drc_run for actual checking and to write tools for mutation, but the alternatives are never named, so the agent must infer the handoff.

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

Deploy Server