Skip to main content
Glama
sheares

easyeda-mcp-fix

by sheares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

pcb_rebuild_pours

Idempotent

Rebuild copper pours so they reflect current tracks, pads, vias, and design rules, replacing manual rebuild-all steps. Rebuild specific pours by ID or all pours, returning which succeeded or failed.

Instructions

Rebuild (re-fill) copper pours so they reflect the current tracks, pads, vias and rules. This replaces the manual "rebuild all copper" step in the EasyEDA app. Pass primitiveIds to rebuild specific pours, or omit it to rebuild every pour. Returns which pours were rebuilt and which failed with a reason, never the poured geometry. Note: on EasyEDA Pro 3.2.206, EasyEDA cannot rebuild a pour that was created through the API; the failure is reported per pour, with a note telling you to ask the user to rebuild all copper in the PCB editor (Shift+B). Warning (upstream EDA bug, pro-api-sdk issue #34): pours reflow using the design-rule snapshot taken when the document was opened, so rule changes written via the API do not take effect until the PCB document is closed and reopened; reopen it before rebuilding after rule changes. Rebuilding does not cut internal-plane anti-pads for different-net vias created after plane generation (issue #32).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentYesTarget document UUID — auto-switches to this document before executing. Get UUIDs from list_instances or editor_get_open_tabs.
instance_idNoTarget EasyEDA instance ID (8-char hex). Required when multiple instances are connected. Omit when only one instance is connected (auto-selected). Use list_instances to see connected instances.
primitiveIdsNoPour primitive IDs to rebuild (omit to rebuild all pours)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.9

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate it is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: return format, per-pour failure reporting, known API-created-pour limitation, rule-snapshot behavior, and upstream anti-pad bug. These details go well beyond the annotations and help an agent anticipate failures.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, targeting behavior, and return behavior, then adds important warnings. It is somewhat dense and lengthy, but most sentences carry operational value given the known upstream EDA bugs.

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 complex mutation-like tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, what is not returned, and how failures are reported. Combined with the fully described parameters and safety annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that primitiveIds can target specific pours or, when omitted, all pours, but this matches the schema description and adds no additional format or syntax detail.

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: rebuild/re-fill copper pours so they reflect current tracks, pads, vias and rules. The scope is clear and distinguishes it from creating new pours, since it concerns existing pours and replaces the manual rebuild-copper step.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: pass primitiveIds to rebuild specific pours, omit to rebuild all. It also describes the EasyEDA Pro API-created-pour failure path and the rule-snapshot reopening prerequisite, but does not compare this tool to sibling alternatives such as pcb_create_pour.

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