easyeda-mcp-pro

Connect pin to net

easyeda_schematic_connect_pin_to_net

Connects an EasyEDA pin to a named net by drawing a tagged wire stub, merging same-net wires globally for ERC, ratsnest, and autorouting.

Instructions

Create real EasyEDA connectivity for a pin: draws a short wire stub from its exact coordinate, tagged with netName. Same-netName wires merge globally, so this joins the pin to everything else on that net — visible to ERC, ratsnest, and autorouting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`netName`	Yes	The net name to connect the pin to (e.g. VCC, GND, DATA0)
`pinNumber`	Yes	The pin number or pin name on the component (e.g. "1", "VCC", "GND")
`projectId`	Yes	The project/schematic ID
`stubLength`	No	Length of the wire stub drawn outward from the pin. Defaults to 10.
`primitiveId`	Yes	The primitive ID of the component
`confirmWrite`	Yes	Must be the literal boolean true (not the string "true") to allow this write.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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"

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmWrite / description

Added value: +"Must be the literal boolean true (not the string \"true\") to allow this write."

addedInput schema / properties / stubLength

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Length of the wire stub drawn outward from the pin. Defaults to 10.",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: that a wire stub is physically drawn, that same-netName wires merge globally, and that the result is visible to ERC, ratsnest, and autorouting. It does not mention transaction/prerequisite needs (confirmWrite is covered by the schema), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and mechanism, and the consequence ('joins the pin to everything else on that net') follows immediately. The trailing ERC/ratsnest/autorouting clause earns its place but is the only slightly expendable phrase.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the schema carries the confirmWrite guard. The description supplies the connectivity semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops short of noting whether this must run inside a transaction or be followed by easyeda_schematic_verify_write, which would make it fully complete for a write tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including stubLength's default and confirmWrite's literal-true constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond echoing netName, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('connect a pin to a net') and goes further by explaining the mechanism: a wire stub drawn from the pin's exact coordinate, tagged with netName. This cleanly separates it from siblings like easyeda_schematic_connect_pins_by_net (bulk) and easyeda_schematic_add_wire (raw geometry).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the mechanism ('joins the pin to everything else on that net'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never names alternatives such as easyeda_schematic_connect_pins_by_net for batch connects, easyeda_schematic_add_wire, or easyeda_schematic_create_net_flag, so the agent must infer routing.

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

Deploy Server