Skip to main content
Glama
sheares

easyeda-mcp-fix

by sheares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sch_delete_component

Destructive

Delete schematic components by primitive ID. The document is snapshotted for recovery, with the backup SHA returned in the response.

Instructions

Delete one or more schematic components by their primitive IDs. Irreversible via this API: there is no undo call. The whole document is snapshotted to the local backup repo first; the response includes the backup SHA for recovery.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesSingle primitive ID or array of primitive IDs to delete
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.5

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds real, non-redundant behavior: no undo call, whole-document snapshot to a local backup repo, and the backup SHA returned for recovery. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and key parameter, then the two most decision-relevant facts (irreversibility, backup SHA). No padding.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description supplies the safety-critical details an agent needs (irreversible, but a recoverable backup SHA is returned). Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the primitive-ID scope and adds 'one or more', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (delete schematic components) and the keying parameter (primitive IDs), and 'one or more' matches the ids anyOf schema. 'Schematic components' implicitly separates it from pcb_delete_primitives and sch_delete_wire, so an agent can route without schema inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope is clear from 'schematic components', but the description never explicitly names when to use it over siblings like sch_delete_wire or pcb_delete_primitives, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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