Skip to main content
Glama
sheares

easyeda-mcp-fix

by sheares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_export_file

Export the current EasyEDA project as a .epro ZIP archive to a local path. Then edit the raw JSON source on disk and re-import for faster batch changes than many small MCP calls.

Instructions

Export the entire current project as a .epro file (ZIP archive) saved directly to a local path. The .epro file contains: project.json (manifest with board/schematic/PCB associations), SHEET/ (schematics), PCB/ (layouts), SYMBOL/ (component symbols), FOOTPRINT/ (footprints), INSTANCE/ (per-instance attribute overrides), and more. All internal files are human-readable newline-delimited JSON arrays.

FAST-BATCH WORKFLOW: for making many changes at once, it is much faster to export the document or project (document_save_to_file / project_export_file), edit the raw source on disk, then re-upload (document_load_from_file / project_import_file) than to issue many small per-primitive MCP calls. Formats differ: on EasyEDA Pro 3, document_save_to_file returns {header}||{body} lines, while the .epro from project_export_file holds newline-delimited JSON arrays, which is what the src/lib editing library reads. Every destructive upload is auto-backed-up to a local git repo first — the response includes a backup SHA you can use to find the prior state if the edit goes wrong. Upload tools accept validate='off'|'warn'|'strict' (default 'strict') which runs the Zod schema on the new source — see document_validate for standalone validation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesAbsolute path to save the .epro file to
fileTypeNoFile format (default: epro)
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world write), the description discloses that output is written directly to a local path and details the internal newline-delimited JSON structure the src/lib library expects. It omits whether an existing file at filePath is overwritten and whether a project must currently be open, which are the main residual behavioral unknowns.

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?

Purpose and archive layout are front-loaded well, but a large fraction of the text is about sibling upload tools, validate modes, and git backups — useful context, yet not about invoking this export tool. It is appropriately informative but not tight.

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 no output schema, the description usefully substitutes by describing the produced artifact's contents and structure, which is what an agent needs to act on the result. Only the overwrite semantics and any open-project precondition are left unstated, which are minor for a file-export tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds format-level context (what an .epro contains) but says nothing about filePath behavior or the epro vs epro2 distinction beyond the schema's one-word hint.

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 (export) and resource (the entire current project) plus the exact artifact produced (.epro ZIP written to a local path), then enumerates the archive contents. This cleanly distinguishes it from document_save_to_file and project_import_file among the siblings.

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 FAST-BATCH WORKFLOW section explicitly says when this tool is worth reaching for (many changes at once instead of per-primitive MCP calls) and names the round-trip partners document_save_to_file / document_load_from_file / project_import_file. It stops short of stating when NOT to export, and it never explains how to choose between epro and epro2.

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