Retrieve schematic component details, footprint bindings, pin coordinates, and wire dimensions in millimeters, including rotated or mirrored elements.
Read components, footprint bindings, actual world pin coordinates and wires in mm, including rotated/mirrored pins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the base is covered. The description adds specific details about the nature of the read (e.g., actual world coordinates, rotated/mirrored pins) which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though no contradictions exist.
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, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and efficiently lists the types of data returned.
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 gives a clear idea of what is returned (components, footprint bindings, coordinates, wires) and includes units and transformation details. While it lacks an explicit output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return content for a read-only tool, and the absence of side effects is covered by annotations.
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 schema has a single nested 'target' object with required fields, but the description does not mention any of these parameters or their meanings. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'target' refers to or how the parameters affect the read.
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 uses the explicit verb 'Read' and lists specific resources: components, footprint bindings, pin coordinates, and wires, with details like 'in mm' and 'rotated/mirrored pins'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_state, which target PCB routing context.
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 use for schematic state retrieval by mentioning 'sch' in the tool name and listing schematic-related elements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like pcb_get_state. No direct comparison or condition is given, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.