Skip to main content
Glama

Silicon Analysts

by io.github.SiliconAnalysts

get_foundry_allocation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Foundry & advanced-packaging ALLOCATION — the current-state snapshot per node/tech (TSMC/Samsung/Intel/... × N2/N3/CoWoS-L/SoIC/...) plus optional time-series HISTORY. Current fields: allocation_status (fully_booked → available), lead_time_weeks_min/max + trend, utilization, price_trend, geo_risk, customers, capacity_current/target, customer_shares, allocation_note. With include_history=true, returns the tracked series from capacity_signals: lead_time / booking-window, pct_locked (%-capacity-locked), customer_allocation (publicly-reported per-customer share), cowos_capacity, foundry_utilization — each point dated (as_of) with provenance. No competitor publishes allocation as a structured, queryable feed.

USE THIS for: "who has CoWoS allocation and how much?", "what's the booking lead time for N2?", "how locked is 2026 CoWoS capacity?", allocation/lead-time trend over time.

DO NOT USE for: per-chip cost (use get_accelerator_costs / calculate_chip_cost); HBM market share/pricing (use get_hbm_market_data); HBM qual status (use get_hbm_qualification).

Filters: foundry, node, category, customer, history_metric, include_history (bool), limit. Sourced public estimates (analyst/press/earnings), human-reviewed; every record carries provenance.confidence_tier. wafer_price is intentionally omitted. Cite as "Silicon Analysts — Foundry Allocation".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNo
limitNo
foundryNo
categoryNo
customerNo
history_metricNo
include_historyNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description adds significant behavioral context: data provenance (public estimates, human-reviewed), confidence tiers per record, intentional omission of wafer_price, citation requirements, and the structure of historical series. This provides a clear picture of what the tool returns and its limitations.

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 longer than typical but well-structured with clear sections (fields, use cases, filters, caveats). Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains the return fields and historical series structure. It also provides usage boundaries, filter options, and provenance details, making it a complete guide for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all filters and explains include_history and the history_metric enum values (lead_time, pct_locked, etc.) in the context of the historical series. However, it does not individually detail parameters like 'limit' or 'node', though their meaning is inferable from context.

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's function: 'Foundry & advanced-packaging ALLOCATION — the current-state snapshot per node/tech...'. It specifies the resource (allocation data) and provides a detailed list of fields, distinguishing it from related tools like get_fab_capacity and get_hbm_market_data.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS for' and 'DO NOT USE for' sections provide concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, listing alternative tool names for each excluded use case (e.g., get_accelerator_costs, get_hbm_market_data).

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