Skip to main content
Glama
oaslananka

easyeda-mcp-pro

by oaslananka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Connect pins by net

easyeda_schematic_connect_pins_by_net

Connect multiple component pins to a single net by drawing wire stubs, merging them for ERC and autorouting; failures are reported per pin without aborting the batch.

Instructions

Bulk variant of connect_pin_to_net: draws a real wire stub from each pin, tagged with netName, so all listed pins (and anything else already on that net) merge into one net. Visible to ERC, ratsnest, and autorouting. A pin that fails (e.g. collision) is reported in failures rather than aborting the batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinsYesList of component pins to connect to the net
netNameYesThe net name to assign pins to
projectIdYesThe project/schematic ID
stubLengthNoLength of the wire stub drawn outward from each pin. Defaults to 10.
confirmWriteYesMust be the literal boolean true (not the string "true") to allow this write.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.2
    • 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"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.1
    • 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 each pin. Defaults to 10.",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. First observedv0.19.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it draws real wires visible to ERC/ratsnest/autorouting, merges into existing net membership, and uses partial-failure (non-atomic) semantics. It does not describe permission/confirmWrite preconditions or reversibility, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the bulk-difference and the core effect, followed by the failure-handling contract. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists and is referenced ('reported in failures'), and the write/partial-failure behavior is described, so an agent has what it needs for a batch mutation. The only minor gap is that it does not restate the confirmWrite gate, though the schema covers it.

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 documents all five parameters including stubLength's default and confirmWrite's literal-true constraint. The description adds only marginal meaning (netName is the tag that merges pins), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Connect pins', drawings wires tagged with netName) and explicitly positions itself as the 'Bulk variant of connect_pin_to_net', naming the sibling it differs from. An agent can distinguish it from the single-pin tool without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: multiple pins at once, and any pin that fails is reported in failures rather than aborting the batch. It names the single-pin alternative but does not spell out a rule for choosing between them (e.g., use this for >N pins), so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools