Retrieve PCB nets merged across schematic sheets with pin counts and routed length, optionally filtered or limited for design review.
Nets (merged across schematic sheets) with pin counts and routed length on the board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that nets are merged across schematic sheets and that pin counts/routed length are included, but says nothing about pagination or how limit/filter behave.
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 packs the resource, its merging behavior, and its attributes with zero waste. Nothing is padded or buried.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. However, the filter parameter's matching semantics are left entirely undocumented, which is a real gap for a list tool whose primary use is filtering.
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 never mentions the limit or filter parameters, so their semantics (defaults of 1000 and empty string, matching behavior) must be guessed. With two undocumented params the description fails to compensate.
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 clear verb+resource ('list... Nets') and adds the returned attributes (pin counts, routed length) and the merging semantics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_net, which is the only gap keeping it below a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and the near-identical sibling get_net is never mentioned, so an agent gets no help deciding between listing all nets and fetching one. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.