Retrieve all properties of a reusable module (CBB) by providing its UUID. Specify a library UUID to narrow the search, or use the active window automatically. Returns the module attributes directly.
lib_Cbb.get(cbbUuid: string, libraryUuid?: string) -> Promise<ILIB_CbbItem | undefined> 获取复用模块的所有属性 returns: 复用模块属性
| 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 full burden. It states the return type (Promise<ILIB_CbbItem | undefined>) and that it returns all properties, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior when the CBB does not exist (returns undefined). It also doesn't clarify whether libraryUuid is needed for disambiguation or what happens if omitted.
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 includes the signature and return type, but it is repetitive: '获取复用模块的所有属性' and 'returns: 复用模块属性' say the same thing. The Chinese and English text overlap without adding new 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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the CBB domain, the meaning of libraryUuid, and any error/undefined behavior. An agent would need to infer too much to use it correctly, especially given the large sibling list.
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% for the two parameters (args and windowId), but the args array items are untyped ({}). The description's signature line adds the parameter names and types (cbbUuid: string, libraryUuid?: string), which is useful, but it doesn't explain the semantics of libraryUuid beyond its optionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the structural parameters.
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 ('get') and resource ('复用模块' / reusable module), and the signature shows it retrieves all properties of a CBB item. It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_lib_cbb_search (search) and eda_lib_cbb_modify (modify), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that eda_lib_cbb_search should be used for finding CBBs by criteria, or that eda_lib_cbb_get is for direct retrieval by UUID. The optional libraryUuid parameter's purpose is not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.