Query real-time EasyEDA/LCEDA Pro API documentation for a design class or method, returning reference details without executing example code.
查询目标客户端实时 API 文档；不会执行返回文档中的示例代码。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_name | Yes | 例如 PCB_Document | |
| method_name | No | 例如 autoRouting |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: sample code in the returned documentation will not be executed, so the lookup has no side effects. It does not mention auth/session 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?
A single short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety caveat trailing. No filler, no restating of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains slightly under-specified is what 'target client' refers to relative to the session-related siblings, but for a two-parameter read-only lookup the definition is essentially complete.
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% with examples for both class_name and method_name, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the class/method relationship, which is the correct baseline 3 when coverage is complete.
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+resource: query the target client's live API documentation. This clearly contrasts with the write-oriented sibling easyeda_call_api, though the sibling is not named explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.
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 implied rather than stated: use this to look up API documentation instead of executing calls. The note that returned sample code is not executed hints at the boundary with easyeda_call_api, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming of that alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.