Generate a spreadsheet-safe CSV BOM as text, with configurable delimiter, grouping, and inclusion of DNP or excluded components.
Return a spreadsheet-safe CSV BOM as text, without writing a file; delimiter may be comma, semicolon or tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| grouped | No | ||
| delimiter | No | , | |
| include_dnp | No | ||
| include_excluded | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is text and does not write a file, which is consistent with annotations and adds a minor behavioral detail. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't disclose other behaviors like output size or dependency on current board state.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and key differentiator (no file write, text output, delimiter options) without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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?
Although an output schema exists (covering the return format), the description omits meaning for four of five parameters and provides no guidance on when to use this tool over the sibling get_bom. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of siblings, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the five parameters (fields, grouped, delimiter, include_dnp, include_excluded). It only mentions delimiter, leaving the other four completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, providing almost no semantic value for parameters.
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 states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('CSV BOM as text') while explicitly noting it does not write a file. This distinguishes it from sibling get_bom by format (CSV) and delivery (text), making the tool's purpose clear and unambiguous.
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 implies usage when a CSV text output without file creation is desired, and the 'without writing a file' hint differentiates from get_bom. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the selection decision partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.