Load specific tool groups, such as schematic, PCB, or verification, into the session. This activates the required design functionalities for automated PCB generation.
Load a tool group's tools into this session, e.g. 'sourcing', 'schematic', 'pcb', 'verification'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of context. It provides crucial domain knowledge by illustrating that the 'name' parameter must correspond to a known, conceptual tool group (e.g., 'schematic', 'verification'), which guides the agent's intent rather than just its data typing.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and follows immediately with clarifying, high-value examples. It is perfectly sized for the function it performs.
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 configuration tool lacking output schema or behavioral annotations, the description is maximally complete. It successfully tells the agent what the parameter means and gives the necessary examples to ensure correct invocation.
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?
Although the schema coverage is 100% (only one parameter), the description adds vital semantic value by listing concrete, non-obvious values for the 'name' parameter. These examples act as in-context enumerations for the single string input.
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 explicitly uses the verb 'Load' and clearly identifies the resource being modified: a 'tool group's tools' into the 'session'. Providing concrete examples like 'sourcing' and 'pcb' further distinguishes this setup function from the workflow-focused sibling tools.
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?
While it functions as a setup step, the description does not explicitly state when this is needed relative to the larger workflow (i.e., before processing or after project creation). It is implied that this is an initialization step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.