Exports the project's current pin configuration to a CSV pinout file, producing the same output the GUI passes to board layout tools for pin assignment handoff.
Export the current pin configuration to CSV (csv pinout <file>), the same file the GUI passes to board layout tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | CSV output path | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies an export/read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if the output path already exists, whether the project must be open, or what is returned.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The parenthetical CLI reference and GUI context are compact and useful.
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 two-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It identifies the output artifact but does not cover overwrite behavior, project state requirements, or return/error information.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the CLI equivalent and does not provide additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: exporting the current pin configuration to a CSV file. It also identifies the CLI equivalent and its downstream use with board layout tools. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as project_export_script or project_report.
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 phrase 'the same file the GUI passes to board layout tools' gives a clear usage context, indicating when this export is appropriate. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.