Retrieve every component on the active or specified PCB backend, including reference, value, footprint, and kind, to inspect board contents or verify design data.
Every component on the open board (reference, value, footprint,
kind), from the active backend (or the one named by backend).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backend | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, what happens with no board open, ordering, or failure behavior. The 'from the active backend' clause is the only added behavioral 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields and backend selection are packed in efficiently. The nested parentheses make it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one optional parameter. Still, with zero annotations the definition is thin on behavioral guarantees an agent needs before calling 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that 'backend' selects a non-default backend versus the active one, but it never says what a backend is or what values are valid.
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?
States the resource ('every component on the open board') and enumerates the returned fields (reference, value, footprint, kind), which pins down what it does. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as pcb_get_components or lib_get_components, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one applies.
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?
Usage is only implied: pulling the component list from the board's active or named backend. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions and no routing to the many alternative component-listing tools, which is a real gap given the crowded sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.