Skip to main content
Glama
octoco-ltd

SheetsData MCP

by octoco-ltd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

find_alternative

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify second-source or replacement components for a given MPN, ranked by spec/package similarity. Use when a part is out of stock, end-of-life, or needs a cheaper drop-in.

Instructions

Find alternative / second-source components for a given MPN. Returns parts ranked by how closely their specs, package, and category match the reference part, with a match_score and match_notes explaining each match.

When to use:

  • Original part is out of stock or end-of-life.

  • You need a cheaper equivalent with similar specs.

  • You need a second source for supply-chain resilience.

  • You need a drop-in replacement on an existing PCB (use constraints=['same_package'], then verify pinout and dimensions).

When NOT to use:

  • You're browsing a category from scratch — use search_parts.

  • You already have candidates and want a head-to-head comparison — use compare_parts directly.

Behavior:

  • Eval boards, dev kits, and breakout modules are filtered out — results are IC-level alternatives only.

  • 'same_package' uses fuzzy matching, so SOT-23 ≡ SOT23, SOIC-8 ≡ SOP-8, LQFP64 ≡ TQFP64, etc. Exact string match is not required.

  • Searches by function across manufacturers and compares available named electrical specs. Package data is enriched from provider parameters and cached catalogue/ordering data. Scores indicate similarity, not verified electrical or pin compatibility.

  • Constraints are never relaxed: unknown stock or package cannot satisfy in_stock or same_package. No verified matches means an empty list.

  • If provider search returns few candidates, the tool falls back to semantic search across extracted datasheets to surface niche alternatives.

  • The response includes a 'hint' field pointing to compare_parts / read_datasheet for drilling into promising alternatives.

Example: find_alternative('TPS54302', constraints=['same_package', 'in_stock'])

DATASHEET STATUS VALUES:

  • 'ready' — extracted and indexed; call read_datasheet, search_datasheets, or analyze_image.

  • 'extracting' / 'in_progress' / 'queued' / 'pending' — extraction running or scheduled. Poll check_extraction_status every 5-10s until 'ready' or 'failed'. Typical time: 30s-2min.

  • 'not_extracted' — known part but datasheet hasn't been fetched yet. Trigger it via prefetch_datasheets (cheapest) or by calling read_datasheet (auto-triggers on first read).

  • 'no_source' — we couldn't find a public datasheet URL for this MPN. First, retry prefetch_datasheets in 10-30s (the URL resolver re-runs and often finds a source on the second pass). If still 'no_source', the agent can upload the PDF manually via request_datasheet_upload + confirm_datasheet_upload (see those tools). Org-uploaded datasheets are private to the org.

  • 'unsupported' — PDF exists but can't be extracted (scanned image-only, encrypted, or corrupted). Upload a clean text-based PDF via request_datasheet_upload to override.

  • 'failed' / 'error' — extraction errored. The response includes the error reason. Retry via prefetch_datasheets or escalate to support.

  • 'rejected' — input wasn't a real MPN (bare value like '100nF', description, or reference designator). Fix the input and re-call.

  • 'deduplicated' — another part in the family already has this datasheet; same content is returned under the primary MPN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax alternatives to return (default 5, max 20).
constraintsNoOptional filters to narrow alternatives. 'in_stock' = only parts with non-zero stock at any provider. 'same_package' = package footprint must match (fuzzy). 'jlcpcb' = must be available at JLCPCB (useful for JLCPCB-assembled boards — also restricts the provider search to JLCPCB).
part_numberYesThe MPN to find alternatives for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / constraints / default
      Previous value: -""New value: +[]
    • changedInput schema / properties / constraints / description
      Previous value: -"Optional constraints: 'in_stock' (only parts in stock), 'same_package' (must match package), 'jlcpcb' (available at JLCPCB). Comma-separated."New value: +"Optional filters to narrow alternatives. 'in_stock' = only parts with non-zero stock at any provider. 'same_package' = package footprint must match (fuzzy). 'jlcpcb' = must be available at JLCPCB (useful for JLCPCB-assembled boards — also restricts the provider search to JLCPCB)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / constraints / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "in_stock",
+    "same_package",
+    "jlcpcb"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / constraints / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"array"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max alternatives to return (default 5)"New value: +"Max alternatives to return (default 5, max 20)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +20
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses that eval boards/dev kits are filtered out, that 'same_package' is fuzzy (with concrete equivalences), that constraints are never relaxed, that empty results are possible, that it falls back to semantic search, and crucially that scores indicate similarity rather than verified electrical/pin compatibility. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The tool-relevant content is front-loaded and well-sectioned, but roughly half the text is a 'DATASHEET STATUS VALUES' reference block that is irrelevant to invoking find_alternative and inflates the definition. The signal is strong but diluted by off-topic boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (match_score, match_notes, and a 'hint' field pointing to compare_parts/read_datasheet). Combined with the constraints semantics and a concrete example call, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the strictness rule that unknown stock/package cannot satisfy in_stock or same_package, the fuzzy package-matching examples, and why 'jlcpcb' also restricts provider search. Minor added value over the already-complete schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find alternative / second-source components for a given MPN') and states the return shape (parts ranked by spec/package/category match). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings search_parts and compare_parts, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' blocks, each with named alternatives (browsing a category -> search_parts; head-to-head comparison -> compare_parts) and the condition that selects each. This is textbook routing guidance.

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