Retrieves detailed information about a specific PCB net by its name, returning the net's data or undefined if it doesn't exist.
pcb_Net.getNet(net: string) -> Promise<IPCB_NetInfo | undefined>
获取指定网络的详细信息
returns: 网络的详细信息, undefined 为不存在该网络
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It positively adds the undefined return for non-existent nets, which is crucial. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like read-only nature or error handling, though the absence of side effects is implied by a getter.
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 includes the essential info: the function signature, a Chinese action phrase, and a return specification. It is structured to quickly convey what the tool does and returns, though the mix of English and Chinese may slightly reduce clarity for an English-only agent.
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?
The tool is a simple getter, and the description covers the main return behavior including the undefined case. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves some gaps: it does not describe what fields IPCB_NetInfo contains or clarify which document/context applies. For a low-complexity read operation, it is adequate but minimal.
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%: both args and windowId are described in the schema. The description includes the function signature showing the net parameter is a string, but does not elaborate beyond the schema's explanation of parameter packaging and window targeting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema and signature together adequately cover parameter meaning.
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 fetches detailed information about a specified network, using verb+resource ('获取指定网络的详细信息'). The name and function signature indicate it operates on PCB nets, distinguishing it from schematic net tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other net-related tools (e.g., getting all nets or net names). It only explains what the tool does, so an agent is left to infer usage context from the name and signature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.