easyeda-mcp-pro

Set schematic title block fields

easyeda_schematic_set_title_block

Update schematic title block fields (Company, Version, Drawn, Reviewed, Page Size) without corrupting the design. Only these five writable fields are exposed.

Instructions

Update schematic title block text fields (Company, Version, Drawn, Reviewed, Page Size). Only these 5 are exposed — writing Symbol/Border/Device/etc once corrupted a real title block; those are read-only natively and must be fixed via the EasyEDA Pro UI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	Yes	Map of title block field name to the sub-fields to change, e.g. { "Company": { "value": "ACME", "showValue": true } }
`confirmWrite`	Yes	Must be the literal boolean true (not the string "true") to allow this write.
`showTitleBlock`	No	Show/hide the whole title block

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"

Addedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description layers on the crucial behavioral fact that writing non-exposed fields (Symbol/Border/Device) previously corrupted a title block and that those are natively read-only, which is exactly the risk context an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 sentences, zero filler. The scope statement comes first and the historical corruption warning follows immediately as justification, so an agent gets the actionable constraint before the rationale.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, a required confirmWrite guard, and an output schema, the description covers the highest-risk area (field scope) well and the schema covers the confirmWrite mechanics. It is essentially complete, with only minor room to note side effects or idempotency behavior beyond the annotations.

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% and the propertyNames enum already enumerates the five allowed field names, so the description repeats rather than extends that. It adds no syntax detail for the nested value/showTitle/showValue sub-objects or for the required confirmWrite flag.

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 ('Update schematic title block text fields') and enumerates exactly which fields are in scope. The parenthetical list plus the explicit note about which fields are excluded makes it distinguishable from any sibling without opening the 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 communicates the operating envelope: only these 5 fields are writable and the rest must be changed in the EasyEDA Pro UI because a prior write corrupted a real title block. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when a caller should prefer this over another write path, but the practical constraint is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server