@whatic/mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_parts

Find electronic components by parametric specs: submit constraints like voltage or current ranges to get ranked IC part numbers, with per-constraint pass/fail results.

Instructions

Shortlist IC part numbers by parametric spec constraints, ranked by how many constraints each part satisfies, then by headroom past those thresholds, and spread across device families. Each constraint is {canonical, op: gte|lte|eq|range, value, unit?}. Returns per-constraint pass/fail/unknown, plus matched (parts that qualified) vs returned (parts in this response) — when they differ this is a ranked page, not the full set. canonical MUST be one of the exact names below (case-sensitive): abs_max_current, abs_max_voltage, adc_resolution, block_erase_time, breakdown_voltage_ds, channel_count, clamping_voltage, clock_frequency, cmrr, cmti, coil_power, coil_resistance, coil_voltage, collector_emitter_voltage, contact_current, contact_resistance, core_size, cpu_speed, current_rating, dark_current, data_rate, data_retention, dc_resistance, drain_current, driver_count, dropout_voltage, dynamic_range, eeprom_size, emitter_base_voltage, fall_time, forward_current, forward_voltage, gain_bandwidth, gate_charge, impedance, input_bias_current, input_capacitance, input_offset_current, input_offset_current_drift, input_offset_voltage, input_offset_voltage_drift, input_voltage_noise_density, insertion_loss, io_count, isolation_voltage, junction_capacitance, load_capacitance, memory_size, operate_time, operating_frequency, operating_temperature, output_capacitance, output_count, output_current, output_noise_voltage, output_power, output_voltage, output_voltage_high, output_voltage_low, page_program_time, peak_pulse_current, power_dissipation, program_erase_cycles, program_memory_size, propagation_delay, psrr, quiescent_current, ram_size, rds_on, receiver_count, rectified_current, release_time, response_time, reverse_leakage_current, reverse_recovery_time, reverse_transfer_capacitance, reverse_voltage, rise_time, sample_rate, sector_erase_time, sensitivity, settling_time, slew_rate, standby_current, supply_voltage_range, switching_frequency, switching_voltage, vgs_threshold, zener_voltage

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_k`	No	Maximum number of parts to return, best first.
`constraints`	Yes	Spec constraints; a part is ranked by how many it satisfies.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is very transparent: it explains ranking by constraint satisfaction and headroom, the matched vs. returned distinction, per-constraint pass/fail/unknown output, and the case-sensitive canonical-name requirement. It also notes that `unit` is informational only, which prevents a common misuse.

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?

The prose is tight and front-loaded, with key behavioral details packed into the first two sentences. The long canonical-name list is redundant with the schema's enum but is presented as a direct requirement, so it is justified; still, it makes the description bulkier than necessary.

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?

For a tool with a complex constraint model, the description covers the essential semantics: input shape, canonical names, operator set, ranking behavior, paging nuance, and output semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required from the description, and nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameter details at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context around constraints (ranking, headroom, matched vs. returned) but does not materially add new meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Shortlist IC part numbers by parametric spec constraints') and a distinctive resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with search/lookup, but the parametric-constraint phrasing is enough to separate it from generic search tools.

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?

The opening sentence gives a clear context for use: when you need to shortlist IC parts based on parametric constraints. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly point to alternatives such as search, get_specs, or compare_parts.

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

Deploy Server