Retrieve detailed attributes of all schematics in an EasyEDA Pro project. Returns an array with each schematic's properties, enabling batch inspection and management.
dmt_Schematic.getAllSchematicsInfo() -> Promise<Array> 获取工程内所有原理图的详细属性 returns: 所有原理图的详细属性的数组
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the call returns a promise of an array of IDMT_SchematicItem; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it depends on an active window/project, or any error/edge-case behavior.
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 and starts with the API signature, which is good for scanning. However, the signature and the 'returns' line redundantly express the same return-type information, and the English/Chinese mix adds minor noise without additional value.
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 getter, the description states the basic return shape and scope, and the schema covers the optional windowId. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what fields IDMT_SchematicItem contains, how projects are resolved, or what happens when no project is open—making it minimally viable but incomplete.
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 schema already documents windowId and args. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, though the embedded signature 'getAllSchematicsInfo()' implies no semantic arguments are needed. This is adequate but the generic 'args' array still lacks concrete guidance for the actual method signature.
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 operation: get all schematics' detailed attributes within the project ('获取工程内所有原理图的详细属性'). The verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishable from siblings like eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_info by the explicit 'all schematics' wording, though it does not name any alternative directly.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_schematic_info or get_schematic_page_info. It only restates the basic purpose, providing no exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as whether a project must be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.