Stop real-time Design Rule Check (DRC) in EasyEDA Pro to prevent continuous validation during PCB editing. Returns true whether or not DRC was active.
pcb_Drc.stopRealTimeDrc() -> Promise
停止实时 DRC 检查
remarks: 本接口返回值为结果导向，调用本接口前已停用实时 DRC 检查也将返回 true
ADD since EDA v4.2 returns: 是否成功停用实时 DRC 检查
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result-oriented return behavior and importantly states that calling it when real-time DRC is already disabled will still return true, preventing an agent from misinterpreting the boolean. It also notes availability since EDA v4.2 and describes the return value, though it does not cover error conditions or side effects beyond stopping.
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 and front-loaded with the operation. The code signature, Chinese action, remark, version note, and return explanation each add relevant information. There is minor redundancy between the Promise<boolean> signature and the 'returns' line, but no wasted sentences.
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, parameter-free operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return semantics. It explains the idempotent success case and version availability. It does not discuss interactions with related DRC tools or failure modes, but these are not critical for calling this low-complexity 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'args' and 'windowId'. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the signature, which shows no explicit parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the load.
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 and resource: '停止实时 DRC 检查' (stop real-time DRC checking). It accurately conveys the operation and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eda_pcb_drc_start_real_time_drc or eda_pcb_drc_get_real_time_drc_status, so it lacks the sibling differentiation needed for a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the action name and description: call when you want to stop real-time DRC. The remark about already-disabled DRC returning true gives useful contextual behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.