easyeda-mcp-pro

Get project transaction status

easyeda_project_get_transaction_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve transaction state, validation results, operation hashes, and rollback status for a given transaction ID without exposing primitive snapshots.

Instructions

Read transaction state, validation results, operation hashes, and rollback status without exposing captured primitive snapshots.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transactionId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`details`	No
`success`	Yes
`error_code`	No
`transaction`	No
`failed_operation_ids`	No
`restored_operation_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 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"

removedOutput schema / properties / transaction / properties / operations / items / properties / target_type / const
```
Removed value: -"schematic-primitive"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / transaction / properties / operations / items / properties / target_type / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "schematic-primitive",
+  "pcb-primitive"
+]
```

Addedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail—that captured primitive snapshots are not exposed—but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It lists the key return categories immediately and appends the snapshot-exclusion caveat efficiently.

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 fully explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits how to obtain the transactionId and when in the transaction lifecycle this read is useful, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter transactionId. The description does not explain where the transaction ID comes from, its format, or its relationship to begin_transaction, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('transaction state, validation results, operation hashes, and rollback status'). It clearly distinguishes the status-inspection role from begin/commit/rollback siblings, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus validate_transaction, commit_transaction, or rollback_transaction. The description only describes the payload, leaving the agent to infer the transactional workflow context entirely.

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

Deploy Server