Search all official EasyEDA Pro APIs by method name, namespace, description, or parameter type to find the exact API for your design tasks.
按方法名、命名空间、说明或参数类型搜索全部官方EasyEDA Pro API。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最大结果数，默认50 | |
| query | No | 搜索词；省略时列出指定命名空间的方法 | |
| namespace | No | 精确命名空间，如 pcb_PrimitiveTrack | |
| includeDeprecated | No | 是否包含已弃用API，默认false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden. It mentions that omitting query lists methods in a namespace, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limit behavior, or whether the search is case-insensitive. It adds some value but leaves gaps.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and search dimensions. No unnecessary words.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema, and the schema covers parameters well. However, for a search tool, it would be useful to know if there are any response format details or limitations. The description is adequate but could clarify behavior like result ranking or 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Since coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching all official EasyEDA Pro APIs by method name, namespace, description, or parameter type. It specifies the resource (official APIs) and the action (search). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like easyeda_api_catalog or easyeda_api_describe, but the search aspect is distinct.
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 implies usage for finding API methods, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like easyeda_api_catalog or easyeda_api_describe. The schema provides optional parameters that hint at use cases (e.g., query vs namespace), but no explicit guidance is given in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.