copper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

preview_route

Preview a deterministic two-pin route candidate without changing board files. Optionally obtain a single-use token to apply the exact candidate later.

Instructions

Preview one deterministic two-pin route candidate without modifying any file.

Setting ``include_apply_token`` additionally returns a single-use token authorizing
``apply_candidate`` for exactly this candidate, board revision and path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "preview_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral traits: the operation is non-modifying and deterministic, and the optional token is single-use and scoped to a specific candidate, board revision, and path. This is excellent transparency.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and then add the optional token behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the poor input schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to construct a valid request. It mentions one optional parameter but omits what data is required in the request object, making usage ambiguous despite the available output schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema is a generic 'request' object with no property definitions and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the behavior of one option ('include_apply_token'), but fails to describe other required request fields, leaving the parameter structure largely undefined.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Preview') tied to a clear resource ('one deterministic two-pin route candidate') and explicitly notes it does not modify files, distinguishing it from apply_candidate. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 description clearly implies usage as a safe preview step before applying, and explains the condition for obtaining an apply token. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like validate_candidate or compare_candidates, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server