Set PCB layers as visible in EasyEDA Pro, optionally making others invisible. Returns success.
pcb_Layer.setLayerVisible(layer?: TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable | Array, setOtherLayerInvisible?: boolean) -> Promise 将层设置为可见 returns: 操作是否成功
| 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 full burden. It only states the return type and that it sets visibility, but doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or any state changes beyond visibility. It's a mutation tool with no behavioral context.
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 very short, but it's just a raw API signature with a one-line Chinese translation. It's not well-structured for an agent; it lacks narrative explanation or formatting. It's under-specified rather than concise.
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?
No output schema, no examples, no description of return value semantics beyond 'operation success'. The tool is simple but still lacks details like what layer identifiers are valid, what happens if layer is omitted, or how setOtherLayerInvisible behaves. Incomplete for reliable use.
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 the signature with parameter names and types (layer, setOtherLayerInvisible), but doesn't explain what they mean or how to format them. The schema only describes the wrapper args array, so the description adds the parameter names but not their semantics. This is partial value beyond schema.
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 tool sets a layer visible, with a specific verb and resource. The name and signature reinforce this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_layer_invisible, though the name makes it obvious.
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, no exclusions, and no context about when this is appropriate (e.g., toggling visibility vs. other layer operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.