Retrieve the team details for the currently active project in EasyEDA Pro. Get the associated team attributes from the focused schematic, PCB, or panel.
dmt_Team.getCurrentTeamInfo() -> Promise<IDMT_TeamItem | undefined>
获取当前团队的详细属性
remarks: 将会获取当前打开且拥有最后输入焦点的原理图、PCB、面板所关联的工程的所属团队的详细属性
returns: 团队的详细属性，如若为 undefined 则获取失败
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read operation, defines the selection scope (focused document's project's team), and specifies the return type and failure condition (undefined). This is more informative than typical for a getter.
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 compact with the core purpose stated first, followed by remarks and return details. It is efficient without redundant phrasing, though the structure could be slightly clearer with separate paragraphs.
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 getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the input scope, what is returned, and the failure case. It lacks a description of the IDMT_TeamItem structure, but that is likely acceptable for a retrieval tool.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (args and windowId), each with descriptive text. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about how to use these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the tool gets detailed properties of the current team, and clarifies what 'current' means (the team of the project associated with the currently focused document). It is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_all_teams_info.
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 use for obtaining current team info, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling team-listing tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.