Create a new PCB project with initialized board, schematic, and semantic Circuit IR.
Create a project and initialize its board, schematic and semantic Circuit IR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| width_mm | Yes | ||
| height_mm | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important side effect: it initializes the board, schematic, and semantic Circuit IR, not just the project shell. However, it does not mention whether the operation can overwrite an existing project, what state it leaves the project in, or any errors that may occur.
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 one tight sentence with no wasted words. The main verb and resource appear first, and the important initialization behavior is included without padding.
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?
The tool has three required parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context. While the output schema exists and the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter semantics and workflow guidance leaves the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 description does not mention name, width_mm, or height_mm at all. It adds no meaning beyond the bare property names, leaving the agent to infer what width_mm and height_mm represent or what constraints apply.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a project' and then details what gets initialized: board, schematic, and semantic Circuit IR. This clearly distinguishes project_create from lower-level sibling tools like component_add, connect_pins, and create_net.
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?
It clearly implies this is the tool for creating a new project before working on it, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or lists preconditions such as needing an empty workspace or valid dimensions. The usage context is present only by implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.