easyeda-mcp-pro

Validate project transaction

easyeda_project_validate_transaction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate transaction consistency before commit by checking bridge availability, pending or failed operations, expected operation count, and applied writes.

Instructions

Run transaction consistency gates before commit: bridge availability, pending/failed operation checks, optional expected operation count, and optional requirement for at least one applied write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transactionId`	Yes
`expectedOperationCount`	No
`requireBridgeConnected`	No
`requireAppliedOperations`	No

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value by listing the specific pre-commit gates performed. It still doesn't say how failure is surfaced (exception vs. structured report), though the output schema may cover the result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the core action and timing first, then enumerates the gates. Dense but no wasted clauses.

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?

For a read-only validation gate with an output schema present, the description identifies what is checked and when it runs, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor gap is the failure-signaling behavior, which the output schema likely documents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well: 'bridge availability' maps to requireBridgeConnected, 'optional expected operation count' to expectedOperationCount, and 'optional requirement for at least one applied write' to requireAppliedOperations. Only transactionId is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Run transaction consistency gates before commit', and it enumerates the gates (bridge availability, pending/failed operation checks, optional operation count, optional applied-write requirement). This clearly distinguishes it from the commit/begin/rollback transaction siblings.

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 phrase 'before commit' gives clear timing/context for when to invoke it, implicitly positioning it ahead of easyeda_project_commit_transaction. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative call or stating what to do when validation fails.

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

Deploy Server