Retrieve all PCB pad primitives with optional filters for layer, net, lock state, or pad type to inspect and manage pads in the active EasyEDA Pro window.
pcb_PrimitivePad.getAll(layer?: TPCB_LayersOfPad, net?: string, primitiveLock?: boolean, padType?: EPCB_PrimitivePadType) -> Promise<Array> 获取所有焊盘 returns: 焊盘图元对象数组
| 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 must disclose side effects, permissions, or side effects. It only states the return type; nothing about read-only nature, error conditions, or parameter effects. This leaves the agent without crucial safety/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 short and avoids redundancy, containing the signature and a terse Chinese summary. It's not verbose, but the structure mixes signature with prose, making it slightly less clean. Still, it's efficient.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain filtering behavior, return structure details, or the purpose of windowId/args. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge.
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 schema only describes a generic args array, not individual parameters. The signature lists layer, net, primitiveLock, padType but gives no semantic meaning or usage guidance. With 100% coverage being superficial, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters cryptic.
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 '获取所有焊盘' (get all pads) and returns an array of pad primitive objects, so the verb+resource is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get (single pad) or eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get_all_primitive_id, relying on the name alone.
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. It doesn't mention filtering, preconditions, or contrast with other get_all variants. The agent must infer usage 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.