Retrieve metadata for the currently loaded schematic, including component count, to inspect design details.
Get information about the currently loaded schematic.
Returns: Dictionary with schematic metadata
Examples: >>> result = await get_schematic_info() >>> print(f"Components: {result['component_count']}")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the Returns block plus example convey the shape of the result, but nothing is said about behavior when no schematic is loaded, field-level contents of the metadata, or side effects.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a short return note and a runnable example. The example is useful but partially redundant with the stated return type.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields. The stated purpose is sufficient, though a note on the 'schematic must be loaded' prerequisite would complete it.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about argument semantics, so no compensation is needed.
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?
Names a specific verb (get) and resource (schematic info) scoped to the 'currently loaded schematic', which implicitly separates it from load_schematic/create_schematic. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus list_components, get_component_pins, or other read tools. The phrase 'currently loaded schematic' hints at a prerequisite but never states it or names any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.