Retrieves a named net's schematic pins with direction and its board routing by layer. Use it to inspect connectivity and routing in a PCB design.
One net: its schematic pins (with direction) and its board routing by layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the useful detail that the return covers both schematic pins (with direction) and board routing per layer, which is real context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about error behavior for missing nets.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and the two facets of the return value with zero wasted words.
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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it does not state whether the design must be open or what happens if the net name is not found, and with no output schema the agent receives no structured detail on the return shape.
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?
Only one parameter (name), and the description's framing as 'one net' makes it clear that name identifies the net to fetch. Schema coverage is 0% and the schema provides no description for name, but the parameter is self-evident given the tool's purpose.
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 (get) and resource (net), and clarifies it returns both schematic pins with direction and board routing by layer. This is more specific than the bare name and distinguishes it from list_nets (which presumably enumerates nets), though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., design must be open), and no distinction from alternatives like list_nets or routing_status. The agent must infer that this is for fetching details of a single named net.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.