Retrieve PCB parts with placement and JLC attributes, then filter by reference designator, value, or package. Use it to inspect board components and manufacturing details.
Parts on the board with placement and JLC attributes. filter matches refdes, value or package.
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include placement and JLC attributes, which is mild extra context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or default behavior beyond what annotations supply.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The content is efficient, though the terseness leaves the `limit` parameter and usage context uncovered.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a read-only listing tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits any explanation of `limit`, result ordering, or when to use this over sibling listing tools — leaving 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 must carry the burden. It explains that `filter` matches refdes, value, or package, which is genuinely useful, but the `limit` parameter (default 500) is left completely unexplained. Partial compensation for a zero-coverage schema.
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 the resource (parts on the board) and the payload returned (placement and JLC attributes), which distinguishes it from the single-part get_part and the mutating add_part/set_part_value siblings. It lacks an explicit list verb and doesn't name alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_part or list_nets instead, and no prerequisites. It describes content only, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.