Insert a through via on a net at X/Y mm coordinates; pad diameter follows the PCB design's restring rules.
Add a through via on a net at (x, y) mm. The pad diameter follows the design's restring rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net | Yes | ||
| x_mm | Yes | ||
| y_mm | Yes | ||
| drill_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — the pad diameter is derived from the design's restring rules rather than user-specified — but says nothing about what happens if a via already exists at that location or what the drill default implies.
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?
Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the pad-diameter caveat second. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly more informative for the space it occupies.
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?
With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more: it omits the drill parameter entirely and does not state units for drill or what the call returns. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, so the description carries full burden. It gives meaning to net and to x/y (mm), which is real value, but drill_mm is never mentioned — its units, default of 0.3, and relationship to the restring-derived pad diameter are left undocumented.
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 and resource ('Add a through via on a net at (x, y) mm'), which is clearly distinct from sibling placement tools like add_part or add_hole. However it does not differentiate itself from the other via-related siblings (stitch_vias, ground_vias, fanout_pad), leaving the agent to infer which via tool to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus stitch_vias, ground_vias, or fanout_pad, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g. during routing vs cleanup). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.