Skip to main content
Glama

Silicon Analysts

by io.github.SiliconAnalysts

get_fab_capacity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fab Capacity — per-fab, per-tech-node-class capacity from the fabs + fab_capacity_snapshots time-series (65 fabs: TSMC, Samsung, Intel, SMIC, GlobalFoundries, and more; Frontend in kwspm, Backend advanced-packaging in k units/month). Default mode returns the LATEST state per (fab, node class) at/before as_of, joined with fab metadata (name, foundry, country, status) and availability_status (fully_booked → available). series=true returns the full dated series — node conversions appear as capacity shifting between node-class rows across effective_dates (e.g. 28nm shrinking while 7nm grows). Every reading carries sourcing metadata (foundry_ir / wfe_vendor_earnings / government_filing taxonomy + citation + confidence) and is_projection for forward-looking guidance. Latest state: all tiers (incl. anonymous). series=true: free key → preview, Pro/Enterprise → full series.

USE THIS for: "what is TSMC's 3nm-class installed capacity by fab?", "which fabs are fully booked?", "how is Fab 14's mature-node capacity being converted over time?", country-level capacity aggregation.

DO NOT USE for: node-level annual wafer starts (use get_wafer_pricing's foundry context or /api/v1/foundry endpoints — different granularity, deliberately separate); allocation/lead-time status per node (use get_foundry_allocation).

Filters: fab_id, foundry, country, tech_node_class, as_of (latest-state cutoff), series (bool), limit. Access: latest state is free for all tiers (incl. anonymous); series=true returns a preview on a free key and the full series for Pro/Enterprise (anonymous gets an empty series + a get-a-key note). Cite as "Silicon Analysts — Fab Capacity".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNo
limitNo
fab_idNo
seriesNo
countryNo
foundryNo
tech_node_classNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description focuses on adding value: it explains the default vs series modes, availability_status mapping, sourcing metadata, is_projection flag, and access-tier restrictions (free vs Pro/Enterprise). No contradiction with annotations.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (overview, USE THIS, DO NOT USE, Filters, Access, Cite). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every section adds relevant operational detail, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 thoroughly explains return contents: fab metadata, availability_status, sourcing metadata, citation, and is_projection. It also covers both modes, access tiers, and example queries, making it complete for a complex time-series 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It lists all 7 filters and clarifies 'as_of (latest-state cutoff)' and 'series (bool)', but does not explain value formats or matching behavior for fab_id, foundry, country, or tech_node_class. While examples mention node classes and countries, the semantics for exact parameter usage remain partially ambiguous.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'per-fab, per-tech-node-class capacity' from a named time-series, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing alternative tools for different granularities (node-level wafer starts, allocation/lead-time), making it unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit 'USE THIS for' and 'DO NOT USE for' sections with concrete example queries and names the alternative tools (get_wafer_pricing, get_foundry_allocation). This fully addresses when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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

All Silicon Analysts toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in domain and purpose, such as get_market_pulse vs get_market_intelligence and get_wafer_pricing vs get_foundry_economics. The detailed USE/DO NOT USE sections help, but the tool names alone do not always make the distinction obvious, requiring careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

18 of 20 tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern, with calculate_chip_cost and estimate_lead_time as minor deviations. No chaotic mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles; the overall scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but reasonable for the server's broad scope covering cost modeling, capacity, allocation, HBM, policy, and market intelligence. Each tool has a distinct niche, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides comprehensive coverage of semiconductor cost estimation, market data, fab capacity, allocation, HBM qualification, and policy timelines. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated memory pricing tool or general search), but these are covered through get_market_dataset and other tools; there are no critical missing functions for the stated domain.

Resources