easyeda-mcp-pro

Run electrical rule check

easyeda_erc_run

Idempotent

Run native schematic ERC to check for design violations and supplement aggregate counts with inferred floating pins. Requires a focused schematic.

Instructions

Run native schematic ERC and supplement aggregate counts with inferred_floating_pins. Requires a focused schematic. Explicit focused is supported; page/all_pages fail closed on EasyEDA Pro 3.2.149. Native counts remain authoritative; unavailable focus returns not_available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No
`checks`	No
`pageUuid`	No
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`passed`	Yes
`error_code`	No
`error_data`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`read_scope`	No
`violations`	Yes
`error_count`	Yes
`detail_source`	No
`not_available`	No
`warning_count`	Yes
`total_violations`	Yes
`inferred_floating_pins`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 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"

addedInput schema / properties / pageUuid

Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "focused",
+    "page",
+    "all_pages"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

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

addedOutput schema / properties / error_data

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "focusedPageUuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "missingCapability": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pageUuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requestedScope": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / passed / anyOf

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

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

addedOutput schema / properties / read_scope

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "focus_changed": {
+      "const": false,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "focused_page_uuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "page_uuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resolved": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "requested",
+    "resolved",
+    "focus_changed",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / detail_source

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "inferred_partial",
+    "native_aggregate_only"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / inferred_floating_pins

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "designator": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "pinNumber": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "primitiveId": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "primitiveId",
+      "designator",
+      "pinNumber"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly false, idempotent true, destructive false), so the description's added value is the failure behavior: fail-closed scopes, native counts being authoritative, and 'not_available' on unavailable focus. That is meaningful beyond structured fields, though the version-specific 'fails closed' condition is narrow.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then failure modes. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 described, and the scope/failure behavior is covered. However, with four parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves checks and pageUuid entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool the agent must configure correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scope enum semantics well (focused works, page/all_pages fail on this version), but says nothing about checks, pageUuid, or the required projectId, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Run native schematic ERC') and adds that it supplements aggregate counts with inferred_floating_pins, so the agent knows it is a native ERC plus an extra inferred metric. The 'native' qualifier implicitly separates it from easyeda_semantic_erc_validate/auto, but those siblings are never named.

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 a clear precondition ('Requires a focused schematic') and states which scope values work versus fail ('explicit focused is supported; page/all_pages fail closed on EasyEDA Pro 3.2.149'). No alternative tool is named for cases where focus is unavailable, which is the only gap.

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

Deploy Server