Retrieve the PCB bill of materials with quantities and custom fields, excluding DNP and excluded parts by default.
Read the PCB bill of materials with quantities and custom fields; omit DNP/excluded parts by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| grouped | 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing safety context. The description adds the behavioral detail about omitting DNP/excluded parts by default, which is not in the annotations, offering useful additional context.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main verb and resource, and all content is relevant to the tool's functionality.
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 output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions that the BOM includes quantities and custom fields, giving a sense of the output. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like empty BOMs or error conditions, but that is acceptable given the output schema provides structure.
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 has 0% description coverage for all four parameters. The description only hints at include_dnp and include_excluded through 'omit DNP/excluded parts by default', but does not explain the 'fields' or 'grouped' parameters. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter descriptions.
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 tool reads the PCB bill of materials and specifies it includes quantities and custom fields, and omits DNP/excluded parts by default. The verb 'Read' and resource 'PCB bill of materials' are specific, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like export_bom and update_bom_fields.
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 for read-only BOM retrieval by using 'Read' and mentioning the default omission of DNP/excluded parts, which suggests when to use it for viewing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like export_bom, so it lacks explicit strategic guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.