Opens a panel library document in the EDA editor using its UUIDs, optionally in a split-screen view. Use it to load and edit panel library files directly.
lib_PanelLibrary.openInEditor(panelLibraryUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, splitScreenId?: string) -> Promise<string | undefined> 在编辑器打开文档
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the function returns a Promise<string | undefined>, but does not explain what the returned string means, whether the call opens a new tab, replaces an existing document, requires a specific window state, or has side effects beyond opening the editor.
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 definition is short and front-loaded with the signature, but the prose sentence '在编辑器打开文档' largely restates what openInEditor already implies. It is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, an agent is left without enough context to know what the returned string is, which parameters are required in practice, how to obtain valid UUIDs, or how this differs from nearby open-in-editor tools. The definition is insufficient for confident invocation.
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 description includes a typed signature with parameter names (panelLibraryUuid, libraryUuid, splitScreenId), which adds meaning beyond the generic args array in the schema. However, it does not explain the relationship between panelLibraryUuid and libraryUuid, when splitScreenId should be used, or how the optional windowId parameter interacts with the 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 name and signature clearly identify a concrete action: open a panel library document in the editor via panelLibraryUuid and libraryUuid. The Chinese phrase '在编辑器打开文档' (open document in editor) is generic but not misleading. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling open-in-editor tools.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor, eda_lib_footprint_open_in_editor, or eda_dmt_editor_control_open_document. The only usage signal is the tool's name, which implies panel library context but provides no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.