Skip to main content
Glama
sheares

easyeda-mcp-fix

by sheares
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sch_run_drc

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a design rule check on a schematic to catch errors and verify the design passes. Returns pass/fail status plus violation details when available.

Instructions

Run Design Rule Check (DRC) on the schematic. Returns { passed, errors? }. Some EDA Pro builds report only a pass/fail boolean at runtime (upstream pro-api-sdk issue #27); in that case "errors" is absent and a note says per-violation detail is unavailable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTruncate result array to at most N items
fieldsNoProject results to only these top-level keys. Response includes _availableFields showing all keys. IMPORTANT: Always specify fields when you know what you need — without it, responses include every property and can be extremely large (100KB+), wasting context.
filterNoKeep items matching all conditions (AND). Exact: {key: value}, prefix glob: {key: "R*"}, OR: {key: ["a","b"]}
strictNoWhether to run strict DRC checks
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.
userInterfaceNoWhether to show DRC results in UI

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.5

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the return shape { passed, errors? } and a build-dependent limitation where some EDA Pro builds only report a boolean, citing upstream issue #27. That caveat would otherwise cause an agent to misread a missing errors array as success-with-no-violations. It does not mention execution time or scope of checks performed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the return shape and the one runtime caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return value and its degenerate case, while the rich input schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. Nothing essential to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the strict flag that governs DRC behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Run Design Rule Check (DRC) on the schematic"), and by naming the schematic as the target it distinguishes itself from the sibling pcb_run_drc without either schema being opened.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to run this versus alternatives such as pcb_run_drc or document_validate, no prerequisites (e.g., a saved document), and no indication of cost or whether the document must be current. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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