easyeda-mcp-pro

Validate netlist

easyeda_schematic_validate_netlist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate inferred nets and floating pins against native ERC, ensuring clean inference and zero errors. Optionally check for graphical wires lacking netlist connectivity.

Instructions

Validate inferred nets/floating pins and cross-check native ERC. Only native noConnected=true excludes a pin; unavailable/malformed state stays visible. valid requires clean inference and zero native errors. Explicit focused is supported; page/all_pages fail closed on EasyEDA Pro 3.2.149.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No
`pageUuid`	No
`projectId`	Yes	The project/schematic ID
`includeWireCheck`	No	When true, also check for graphical wires without netlist connectivity

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`valid`	Yes
`netlist`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`error_code`	No
`error_data`	No
`native_erc`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`read_scope`	No
`total_nets`	Yes
`floating_pins`	Yes
`not_available`	No
`wires_without_netlist`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 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 / pageUuid

Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "focused",
+    "page",
+    "all_pages"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

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 / error_code
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / error_data

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "focusedPageUuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "missingCapability": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pageUuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requestedScope": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / read_scope

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "focus_changed": {
+      "const": false,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "focused_page_uuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "page_uuid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resolved": {
+      "enum": [
+        "focused",
+        "page",
+        "all_pages"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "requested",
+    "resolved",
+    "focus_changed",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / floating_pins / items / properties / designator
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / native_erc

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "error_count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "warning_count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "error_count",
+    "warning_count",
+    "passed"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive behavior: only native noConnected=true excludes a pin, unavailable/malformed state remains visible, and `valid` requires clean inference plus zero native errors. This clarifies the pass/fail semantics beyond structured fields, though it omits error/partial-result handling detail.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and leading into behavioral rules. Dense but each sentence carries information; minor jargon ('fail closed') slightly reduces immediate readability.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values. It supplies the pass/fail rules and scope constraints an agent needs, leaving only the pageUuid/scope interplay under-specified.

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 50%: projectId and includeWireCheck are documented in-schema, but scope has an enum with no schema description and pageUuid is undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining scope behavior (focused works, page/all_pages fail closed), but leaves pageUuid's relationship to scope and its requiredness unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: validating inferred nets/floating pins and cross-checking native ERC. This distinguishes it from a plain ERC run, though it never names the sibling tools (easyeda_erc_run, easyeda_semantic_erc_validate) it competes with, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a version-conditioned constraint ('Explicit focused is supported; page/all_pages fail closed on EasyEDA Pro 3.2.149') which is useful for choosing scope, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the other ERC/validation siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server