Get full detail for one part by id: parameters, verification status, datasheet, and absolute download URLs for .kicad_mod (footprint), .kicad_sym (symbol), .step and .glb (3D).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Part id, e.g. 'jst_ph_4pin', 'usb_c_16p' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals what the response includes (parameters, verification status, datasheet, absolute URLs for four formats), which is helpful. It omits any error behavior (e.g., unknown id) or side effects, but for a read-only getter this is a reasonable disclosure.
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?
The description is one focused sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds concrete value. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given this is a simple single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the user gets. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke with an id and understand the returned detail set.
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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces 'by id' without adding extra meaning, meeting the baseline for schema-driven clarity.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for one part by id' and enumerates the exact content returned (parameters, verification status, datasheet, download URLs). This distinguishes get_part from siblings like list_parts and search_parts, which cover broader or different use cases.
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 phrase 'by id' implies usage when you already know a specific part identifier, and the content list suggests a full-detail retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use search_parts to find an id') or state when not to use it, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct action in the part lifecycle: discovery (list, search, get), acquisition (request, submit), guidance (how_to_contribute), and feedback (report_feedback). No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly indicates when to use each.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_part, list_parts, search_parts, request_part, submit_part, report_feedback). The exception is how_to_contribute, which breaks the pattern but remains readable and clear.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a component registry, covering discovery, contribution, and feedback without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
The toolset fully covers the core domain: searching and retrieving parts, handling missing parts via parametric generation or user submission, and recording real-world feedback. The lack of update/delete tools is appropriate for a CI-promoted registry, and feedback is tied to parts via the public GitHub system.