easyeda_get_selectionRetrieve components, pins, or primitives from the active schematic or PCB canvas so you can inspect or edit the user's current selection.
Returns components, pins, or primitives currently selected by the user on the active schematic or PCB canvas.
| 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 readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world and crucially idempotentHint=false; the description's 'currently selected by the user' explains why results vary between calls, which adds some context. However, it never says what happens when nothing is selected, whether the selection must be in the foreground document, or why a timeout exists — gaps the annotations cannot fill.
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?
One information-dense sentence with no filler, and the key discriminator (user-selected objects) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its compression is partly what leaves the behavioral questions unanswered.
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 does carry responsibility for shape and does name the three possible kinds of returned objects (components, pins, primitives). It is still incomplete for a tool whose result depends on live UI state: empty-selection behavior and the timeout semantics are the main omissions.
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% and the single parameter, timeoutMs (default 10000, max 120000), is entirely unmentioned. Its presence suggests the call may wait or poll for a user to make a selection, which is a materially different behavior from an instantaneous read, and the description gives no help in interpreting it.
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 a precisely scoped resource: the objects 'currently selected by the user on the active schematic or PCB canvas'. That user-selection scope distinguishes it from the many sibling listing tools (easyeda_list_schematic_components, easyeda_get_pcb_tracks, easyeda_list_documents), 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for resolving 'the thing the user just selected'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer a canvas snapshot or context call instead, and no note on what to do if the selection is empty or spans multiple documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.