Get details of the currently focused EasyEDA Pro project, including its name, file path, and document count.
Get information about the currently focused project.
Returns: Dictionary with project information: - project_name: Name of the project - project_path: Full path to the project file - document_count: Number of documents in the project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, and the return fields are spelled out, but it says nothing about the failure case when no project is focused, or whether the result reflects live in-memory 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and single-purpose, followed by a compact return listing. The return listing somewhat restates what the output schema would cover, which is the only source of slack.
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, this covers what it does and roughly what comes back. The only real gap is the empty/no-focused-project behavior, which matters for a 'currently focused' accessor.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No wasted parameter prose was added.
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 verb and resource ('Get information about the currently focused project'), and the qualifier 'focused' meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like proj_list_open, proj_get_path, and proj_get_stats. It stops short of naming any of those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus proj_get_path, proj_get_stats, proj_get_board_info, or proj_get_parameters, all of which sound adjacent. The agent must infer the choice from 'focused' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.