Retrieve the PCB information file from the current PCB manufacture data. Use this tool to access the file for review or export, resolving the need to locate or generate PCB info data.
pcb_ManufactureData.getPcbInfoFile(fileName?: string) -> Promise<File | undefined> 获取 PCB 信息文件 returns: PCB 信息文件
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return type Promise<File | undefined> and the optional fileName parameter, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, when undefined is returned, where the file comes from, or any side effects.
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 leads with the API signature before the Chinese summary. The 'returns: PCB 信息文件' line is somewhat redundant with the signature, but overall the text is short and free of unnecessary filler.
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 only a generic args parameter schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the file-selection behavior, the meaning of an omitted fileName, likely failure modes, or how this tool fits among the many sibling manufacture-data retrieval tools.
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 provides the official signature with fileName?: string, which meaningfully clarifies how to fill the generic args array described in the schema. It does not explain what a valid fileName looks like, but the added signature is genuine value beyond the 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 verb 'get' and the resource 'PCB info file', and it includes the API signature, which makes the tool's basic function unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many other get_* manufacture-data sibling tools, so it stops short of full clarity.
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 alternatives such as eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_gerber_file, get_bom_file, or get_netlist_file. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred selection context, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.