datasheet-lens

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_remove_source

Removes a purchase source number from a project part when that number is wrong or not ordered, with optional removal from the central store and team server.

Instructions

Remove a purchase source ([[part.source]]) from a part of the user project: a number that the project does not order (a different packaging) or a wrong number (project_check gives "one of them is wrong", project_availability gives "is X, not Y"). A part can have more numbers of one source; adopt_part adds one and does not replace the others. Do it only when the user agrees. The CAD BOM is the master: the LCSC field of the symbol must give a number that the part keeps (write it with kicad-workbench set_symbol_fields), then project_check.

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": {
      "mpn": "<mpn>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "project_remove_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mpn`	Yes	The MPN of the project part.
`path`	No	A folder of the user project (default: the working folder of the server). The project file datasheet-lens.toml is in it or in a parent folder.
`store`	No	True: also remove it from the central store and the team server, for a number that is wrong for the part (for example a C number of a different MPN). False: only from the project file; the store keeps where the part is available.
`number`	Yes	The part number of the purchase source to remove: a DigiKey number, a JLCPCB C number or a Mouser number, as project_status and project_availability give it.
`source`	No	digikey, jlcpcb or mouser: only when more sources of the part have the number. Empty: the source that has it.
`dry_run`	No	True: change nothing, only tell what would change.
`manufacturer`	No	The manufacturer, any of its names (TI or Texas Instruments: the store knows the names of one manufacturer). Necessary only when two parts have the same MPN.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutating, confirmation-gated operation, that numbers are additive per source (removing one does not remove others), the CAD-BOM-master constraint requiring the symbol's LCSC field to be rewritten with kicad-workbench set_symbol_fields first, and that project_check should follow. It does not state reversibility/undo or what happens when the number does not exist, so it stops short of 5.

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 is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on with jargon and templating artifacts ([[part.source]]) that force the reader to parse interleaved error strings and sibling tool names. The workflow instruction (set_symbol_fields → project_check) is valuable but buried at the end.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs: the precondition for removal, user-consent gating, the BOM-master rule, and the verification step. Only error/failure behavior (number not found, ambiguous manufacturer) is left unaddressed, and the manufacturer param covers the ambiguity case.

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 mpn, path, store, number, source, dry_run and manufacturer are already documented, and the store description already explains the central-store/team-server consequence. The description adds only the relational nuance that a part can hold several numbers per source; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Remove a purchase source ([[part.source]]) from a part of the user project", and immediately contrasts with the sibling that adds one ("adopt_part adds one and does not replace the others"). An agent can distinguish this from project_remove_part and adopt_part without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the exact triggering conditions (a number the project does not order / a wrong number, evidenced by project_check saying "one of them is wrong" or project_availability saying "is X, not Y"), an explicit gate ("Do it only when the user agrees"), and the follow-up verification step. When-not is implied by those preconditions rather than alternatives, but the routing is unambiguous.

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