easyeda_get_pcb_layersRetrieve the active EasyEDA Pro PCB layer stackup and configuration, including signal/copper layers, mechanical layers, colors, and visibility for layer inspection.
Returns the layer stackup and configuration of the active EasyEDA Pro PCB, including signal/copper layers, mechanical layers, colors, and visibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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"v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope detail (what is included: copper layers, mechanical layers, colors, visibility) and the fact that it targets the *active* PCB, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. It does not describe return shape or any failure/timeout behavior.
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 the resource named first and the content enumeration following. No filler or redundancy.
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, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the categories returned. It is adequate for a simple read tool, though it could note the active-document requirement more explicitly as a precondition.
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?
Only one optional parameter (timeoutMs) and schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter is a self-explanatory timeout with a default, maximum, and exclusive minimum already encoded in the schema. The description adds no meaning to it, but the omission is low-cost here.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('layer stackup and configuration of the active EasyEDA Pro PCB') plus the enumerated contents. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like easyeda_get_board_outline or easyeda_get_copper_zones by the stackup framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many PCB getter siblings. The agent must infer that this is the tool for layer/stackup questions rather than outline, net classes, or zones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.