Validate a PCB route for clearance against copper, pad shapes, board edges, and layer transitions without modifying the design.
Check explicit MODEL-supplied path against copper, pad shapes, board edges and layer transitions. Read-only; never plans or applies routes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; never plans or applies routes.' It adds behavioral specificity about the checks performed. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but since there is no output schema, that is a moderate gap rather than a contradiction.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds a key behavioral caveat. It contains no redundancy and every phrase earns its place.
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 description captures the core operation and non-mutating nature well, which is important for a read-only checker. However, with no output schema, it omits what the tool returns on pass/fail and does not explain how the target or clearance parameters participate in the check, leaving some operational context missing.
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 compensate: it only mentions the route as an 'explicit MODEL-supplied path' and says nothing about the 'target' object or how route properties like clearance, vias, or segments are interpreted. The agent must rely on schema property names alone.
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 opens with a specific verb, 'Check', and names the precise object—'explicit MODEL-supplied path'—and the constraints checked: copper, pad shapes, board edges, and layer transitions. This clearly differentiates it from route planning or applying routes.
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 gives clear context by framing the tool as validation of a model-supplied path and explicitly states it 'never plans or applies routes,' which tells the agent what not to use it for. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like pcb_apply_route or state when to prefer them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.