按 ID 获取单个零部件的完整字段，包含 source_tier（数据来源等级）、confidence（置信度）、data_quality 与 mechanical_interface 等元数据。用于在做出采购/设计决策前核对证据强度。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 零部件 ID，如 ACT-001 / CHIP-001 / SENS-001。大小写与连字符需完全匹配，不做模糊查找；建议先由 search_components 返回值取得。注意 ID 前缀不能反推 category（库内存在前缀与品类不一致的条目，实时条数见 GET /mcp 的 dataset.id_category_mismatch）。 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the returned content (metadata fields) and context, but does not explicitly disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, error behavior, or the exact-match requirement (the latter is in the schema, not the description). The 'verify evidence strength' purpose hints at non-destructive use, but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a concise use-case statement. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, return fields, and use context. The schema supplements with matching rules. It lacks an explicit 'not found' behavior or output format, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the id parameter in detail (exact match, case sensitivity, no fuzzy lookup, suggestion to get from search_components, ID prefix caution). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '单个零部件的完整字段' (complete fields of a single component), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_components (search) or check_compatibility (compatibility). It also lists specific metadata fields, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use context: '用于在做出采购/设计决策前核对证据强度' (used to verify evidence strength before procurement/design decisions). The schema additionally advises obtaining the ID from search_components, implying a sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
多个工具处理重叠的任务：check_compatibility、review_compatibility 和 bom_compatibility_check 都涉及兼容性验证，其中前两个尤其相似，第二个使用了与第一个相同的引擎，可能是多余的。此外，search_components 和 semantic_search 重叠但具有不同机制。虽然这些描述有所澄清，但代理仍可能选择错误工具（例如，当简单检查就足够时使用了 review_compatibility）。
大多数名称遵循 verb_noun 模式（get_component_detail、search_components、review_compatibility），但有几个偏差：semantic_search 是 adjective_verb 而非 search_semantic，而 bom_compatibility_check 将操作放在最后，与 check_bom_compatibility 相反。模式的不一致性削弱了可预测性。
使用 9 个工具，组件覆盖了搜索、详情、参数语义、标准审计、推荐以及兼容性检查的多个变体——表面上足够广，但没有膨胀。每个工具针对不同的检索或分析需求，使其合理且可管理。
该表面涵盖了该领域的大部分关键功能：搜索、详情、语义标准化、标准审计、推荐以及通过三种模式进行的兼容性检查。缺失 CRUD 操作可能表明它是一个只读库，但没有任何接口来创建或更新部件，这限制了对数据库的管理。总体而言，对于查询和验证，覆盖范围相当完整，仅有边缘缺口。