Retrieve all vias on a PCB board, with optional filtering by net name for targeted analysis.
List vias on the board, optionally filtered by net name.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_vias"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (listing), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authorization requirements.
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 sentence, front-loading the action and filter option. Every word is essential, with no 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?
Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about return format or board context but covers the core functionality.
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 description explains the single parameter 'net_name' as an optional filter, which adds value beyond the schema (0% coverage). However, it does not provide formatting details or constraints beyond 'net name'.
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 clearly states the tool lists vias on the board, with optional filtering by net name. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('vias'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tracks or list_nets.
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?
The description implies usage for listing vias, optionally filtered, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list_* tools or provide any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.