easyeda-mcp-pro

Place schematic component

easyeda_schematic_place_component

Place a searched library device onto the active schematic at specified coordinates, with optional collision checks and transaction-backed rollback.

Instructions

Place a searched library device on the active schematic. Use deviceItem from schematic_search_device; project-local identities from schematic_components are invalid. On timeout inspect reconciled/unconfirmed before retrying. projectId + transactionId enables rollback; without transactionId the write is standalone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`dryRun`	No
`mirror`	No
`rotation`	No
`projectId`	No	Required when transactionId is supplied; must match the transaction document.
`addIntoBom`	No
`addIntoPcb`	No
`deviceItem`	Yes
`subPartName`	No
`confirmWrite`	Yes	Must be the literal boolean true (not the string "true") to allow this write.
`transactionId`	No	Optional snapshot-backed project transaction ID.
`collisionRadius`	No
`verifyAfterWrite`	No
`checkPlacementCollision`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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"

addedInput schema / properties / projectId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required when transactionId is supplied; must match the transaction document.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / transactionId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional snapshot-backed project transaction ID.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / checkPlacementCollision
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / collisionRadius
```
Added value: +{
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / confirmWrite / description
```
Added value: +"Must be the literal boolean true (not the string \"true\") to allow this write."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / dryRun
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / verifyAfterWrite
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false annotations, the description discloses transactional behavior: projectId+transactionId enables rollback while omitting transactionId makes the write standalone. This is exactly the non-obvious mutation semantics an agent needs, and it also flags real vs phantom timeout state via reconciled/unconfirmed.

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?

Four dense sentences, each load-bearing and front-loaded: purpose first, then input provenance, then failure handling, then transaction semantics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical mutation/rollback/collision-safety concerns for a write tool. It falls short of 5 only because coordinate-space semantics and several write-affecting flags are left entirely to an under-documented schema.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage across 15 params, the description usefully clarifies deviceItem origin, the projectId/transactionId coupling, and confirmWrite intent. However, the majority of parameters (x/y units, mirror, rotation, addIntoBom, addIntoPcb, subPartName, collisionRadius, verifyAfterWrite, checkPlacementCollision) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Place) and resource (schematic component) with the scope qualifier 'searched library device on the active schematic'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from read/list siblings like schematic_components and schematic_search_device by naming the source of deviceItem.

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 routes the agent: deviceItem must come from schematic_search_device, and project-local identities from schematic_components are declared invalid. It also gives timeout-recovery guidance (inspect reconciled/unconfirmed before retrying), covering both when-to-use and failure handling.

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

Deploy Server