Fetch detailed attributes for every PCB in an EasyEDA Pro project. Use it when you need a complete list of PCB properties from the active or specified window.
dmt_Pcb.getAllPcbsInfo() -> Promise<Array> 获取工程内所有 PCB 的详细属性 returns: 所有 PCB 的详细属性的数组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a non-mutating read operation and a Promise<Array<IDMT_PcbItem>> return, but it says nothing about whether it reflects the current project, how windowId affects results, potential for large result sets, or error behavior. It is minimally transparent.
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 short but somewhat redundant: the signature line 'dmt_Pcb.getAllPcbsInfo() -> Promise<Array<IDMT_PcbItem>>' repeats the tool name and return type, and the final 'returns' line duplicates the main statement. It is not bloated, but it earns only average marks because lines do not each add distinct information.
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 simple read-only list tool, the description provides the essential action and return shape, but it omits relevant context such as the meaning of windowId, whether '工程内' means the currently active project, and what IDMT_PcbItem contains. With no output schema or annotations, an agent has only a vague idea of what will be returned.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning: it does not mention windowId or how the args array should be used. The schema already describes both parameters generically, so no credit beyond baseline is warranted.
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 clear verb-resource pair: '获取工程内所有 PCB 的详细属性' (get detailed attributes of all PCBs in the project), and the function signature indicates it returns an array of IDMT_PcbItem. It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_dmt_pcb_get_pcb_info and eda_dmt_pcb_get_current_pcb_info by the 'all PCBs' scope, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pcb_info, get_current_pcb_info, or other get_all_*_info siblings. The only implied usage is in the name 'get_all'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.