Submit a PCB design to Groundplane for human review with optional notes; it makes no network calls until connected.
Request a human design review from Groundplane (not connected yet: makes no network calls).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this by disclosing that the backend is 'not connected yet' and makes no network calls. That is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent must know before calling, since the call will silently do nothing.
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 with an efficient parenthetical. No wasted words, though the parenthetical could be integrated more cleanly into the sentence.
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?
Annotations already carry the safety profile and no output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, the sole parameter is undocumented and there is no routing guidance against the automated design-check siblings, leaving a modest gap for a tool whose main risk is being confused with them.
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?
There is one parameter ('notes') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving the agent to guess what to pass.
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: 'Request a human design review from Groundplane.' The word 'human' implicitly separates it from automated siblings like run_drc, run_erc, and review_schematic, though it never names an alternative 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?
No when-to-use guidance is given and no sibling is referenced. With run_drc, run_erc, and review_schematic all present in the same namespace, the agent is left to infer that this is the human-fallback path rather than an automated check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.