Recursively search a root directory for Cadence Allegro PCB files (.brd) and return a list with metadata including size, estimated layers, and component count.
在指定根目录递归查找 Cadence Allegro PCB 文件 (.brd)。返回带元数据 (大小、估计层数、器件数) 的列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| glob | No | 匹配模式,默认 *.brd。 | *.brd |
| root | Yes | 搜索根目录绝对路径。 | |
| max_results | No | 最大返回数量,默认 50。 |
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 adds some behavioral context by stating results are a list with metadata (size, estimated layer count, component count), but it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled.
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 succinct sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and including the key return format. No wasted words.
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 find operation, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies recursive search and the metadata returned. The only notable gap is routing guidance relative to sibling parse_brd_file.
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 100%, so the schema already documents root, glob, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('递归查找') and resource (Cadence Allegro PCB .brd files) scoped to a root directory. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling parse_brd_file, so an agent may not immediately know which one to choose.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The description describes the operation but mentions no alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over siblings like parse_brd_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.