Get the IPC-D-356A netlist file for a PCB design, providing the connectivity data required for manufacturing and electrical testing.
pcb_ManufactureData.getIpcD356AFile(fileName?: string) -> Promise<File | undefined> 获取 IPC-D-356A 文件 returns: IPC-D-356A 文件数据
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return type (Promise<File | undefined>) but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens if the file is missing. For a retrieval operation, this is minimal coverage.
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 extremely short, consisting of the signature and a one-line Chinese description. While concise, it lacks structured sections and front-loaded key details. It is not verbose, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what IPC-D-356A is, the format of the returned File, or any context about when this file is needed. For a tool with a specific file format, this is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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 mentions fileName?: string, but the schema uses an 'args' array and 'windowId'. It does not clarify how fileName maps into the args array or its order. Schema coverage is effectively low for the functional parameter, and the description adds little beyond repeating 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 description states the tool retrieves an IPC-D-356A file, which is a specific resource type. The verb 'get' and resource are clear, and the name itself differentiates it from other get_*_file siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_gerber_file or get_bom_file, so it's slightly lacking in differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling file-getting tools. The description simply says 'get IPC-D-356A file' without explaining scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.