Retrieve complete details for a specific part by reference designator, including board placement, schematic device data, attributes, and pin net connections.
Everything about one part: board placement, schematic device, attributes, and each pin's net.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | 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, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregate nature of the response but says nothing about behavior on an unknown ref, error handling, or cost of the call.
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 earns its place by listing exactly what comes back, with no filler. It loses a point only because the listed facets substitute for any guidance on the input.
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 no output schema, describing the returned payload is the right move and the description does that. It remains incomplete on ref semantics and on any precondition such as an open design, which the agent must guess.
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 single required parameter "ref" is completely undocumented. The description says only "one part", never clarifying that ref is a reference designator (e.g. R1, U3) or its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (one part) and enumerates the returned facets: board placement, schematic device, attributes, pin nets. This distinguishes it clearly from list_parts (plural) and get_net (nets), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 by the singular scope of "one part": an agent can infer this is the detail lookup after list_parts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (must a design be open first?), and no routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.