easyeda_export_gerberExports Gerber fabrication files from the active EasyEDA Pro PCB via the extension, so you can prepare manufacturing outputs from your current board design.
Exports Gerber fabrication files from the active EasyEDA Pro PCB through the extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileName | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not contradicting it — exporting does not mutate board data. The description adds the useful constraint that the target is the *active* PCB reached 'through the extension', but it does not say where files land, whether existing outputs are overwritten (consistent with idempotentHint=false), or what happens on timeout given the 120s cap.
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 a clear verb-resource-source structure and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and prerequisite information noted elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only place to explain the two parameters and the return shape, and it explains neither. For an export tool whose result is a set of files, at minimum the output destination and the meaning of fileName should be stated.
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 carry both parameters and does not: 'fileName' (naming/path of the output archive or files) and 'timeoutMs' (default 60000, max 120000) are never mentioned or explained. An agent gets no signal on what fileName should look like or how the timeout affects a multi-file fabrication export.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Exports Gerber fabrication files') and qualifies the source ('from the active EasyEDA Pro PCB'), which distinguishes it from the PDF/BOM/CPL/DXF export siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for which deliverable, but the output format makes the split obvious.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing an active PCB document or completed DRC, and no pointer to alternatives like easyeda_export_pdf or easyeda_export_cpl. The only contextual cue is the word 'Gerber', leaving the agent to infer the lifecycle position of this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.