Retrieve a specific PCB arc primitive by its ID from the active EDA window. Returns the arc object or undefined if retrieval fails, enabling direct inspection and manipulation of arc elements.
pcb_PrimitiveArc.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveArc | undefined>
获取圆弧线
returns: 圆弧线图元对象，undefined 表示获取失败
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state the async return shape (`Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveArc | undefined>`) and that `undefined` means failure. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, distinguish not-found from other failures, or mention any window prerequisites.
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: a signature, a one-line Chinese purpose, and a return/failure note. There is minor redundancy between the signature's return type and the final 'returns' line, but no filler or unrelated content.
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 single-parameter read operation, it covers purpose, parameter name/type, return type, and the failure sentinel, while the schema covers `windowId`. It omits input-string formatting, alternative-tool routing, and side-effect confirmation, and with no annotations the agent must infer safety from the word 'get'.
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 input schema only exposes generic `args` and `windowId`, so the description is the sole source for the real API parameter, providing `primitiveIds: string`. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema, though it leaves the exact string format (single ID vs. delimited list) and how to encode it into `args` unstated.
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 uses a specific verb ('get') plus the resource ('圆弧线' / arc line) and exposes the signature with `primitiveIds`, making it clear this is the by-ID arc getter. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like `eda_pcb_primitive_arc_get_all` or generic primitive getters, but the singular resource and parameter make the purpose unambiguous.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus `eda_pcb_primitive_arc_get_all`, `eda_pcb_primitive_arc_get_all_primitive_id`, or generic getters like `eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id`. The phrase '获取圆弧线' only implies the action; it does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.