easyeda-mcp-pro

Check for pin-coordinate collisions across the sheet

easyeda_schematic_check_collisions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan component pin coordinates to detect overlapping (x,y) positions that risk silent shorts, catching collisions the native guard misses for never-wired pins.

Instructions

Scan every component's real pin coordinates and report any (x,y) shared by two or more components — a silent-short risk the native NET_COLLISION guard misses for never-wired pins. Run after manual placement outside easyeda_workflow_* tools (which reconcile this automatically).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project/schematic ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`collisions`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`scan_complete`	Yes
`collision_count`	Yes
`scan_diagnostics`	No

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 / scan_complete
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / scan_diagnostics

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "component_count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "component_enumeration_ms": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "components_scanned": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "concurrency": {
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "duration_ms": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "failed_component_count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "failed_components": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "error": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "primitive_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "primitive_id",
+          "error"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "overall_timeout_ms": {
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "per_call_timeout_ms": {
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "pin_lookup_ms": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "stage": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "component_enumeration",
+        "pin_lookup"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stage_error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "stage",
+    "component_count",
+    "components_scanned",
+    "failed_component_count",
+    "failed_components",
+    "duration_ms",
+    "component_enumeration_ms",
+    "pin_lookup_ms",
+    "concurrency",
+    "per_call_timeout_ms",
+    "overall_timeout_ms"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "collisions",
-  "collision_count",
-  "success"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "collisions",
+  "collision_count",
+  "scan_complete",
+  "success"
+]

Addedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuine domain context beyond that: it explains what a collision means (a silent-short risk) and why the native guard is insufficient for never-wired pins. It does not describe output format or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 dense sentences that front-load the operation, then the diagnostic rationale, then the usage condition. No filler clauses; every phrase contributes to selection or invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it scans, what it returns conceptually, the risk it addresses, and when to run it. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% with a single well-documented projectId parameter, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter itself.

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?

Names a specific operation ('Scan every component's real pin coordinates') and a concrete output ('report any (x,y) shared by two or more components'), and frames it against the native NET_COLLISION guard so the agent knows this is not a duplicate of a built-in check. Differentiates clearly from the many sibling diagnostics tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('Run after manual placement outside easyeda_workflow_* tools') and the exclusion ('which reconcile this automatically'), so an agent knows both when to call it and when the workflow tools already cover it.

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

Deploy Server