Retrieve all copper pour outline primitive IDs from the PCB editor. Optionally filter by net, copper layer, or lock state for targeted selection.
pcb_PrimitivePour.getAllPrimitiveId(net?: string, layer?: TPCB_LayersOfCopper, primitiveLock?: boolean) -> Promise<Array> 获取所有覆铜边框的图元 ID returns: 覆铜边框的图元 ID 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 carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only getter and returns an array of IDs, but does not explicitly state there are no side effects or mention any dependencies like window context. The function signature adds some clarity, but no deeper behavioral disclosure (e.g., performance, locking, or ordering) is given. For a simple getter this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise, including the signature and a brief return type note in just a few lines. It is front-loaded with the function signature, which is useful for agents. No unnecessary fluff.
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 straightforward getter with three optional parameters. The description provides the signature and return type, but omits parameter semantics and any context on how the returned IDs might be used (e.g., with other pour operations). Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete, but the missing parameter explanations leave a gap for an agent deciding how to construct arguments.
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 function signature with parameter names and types (net?, layer?, primitiveLock?), which goes beyond the generic args array in the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning or effect of each parameter (e.g., what net filters, what layer options exist, what primitiveLock does). The schema only documents the wrapper fields, so the description partially compensates but lacks semantic depth.
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 explicitly states it gets all primitive IDs for copper pour (覆铜边框). The verb 'get' and resource 'all primitive IDs' are specific, and the primitive type (pour) distinguishes it from sibling tools like polyline, poured, and region. The name and description together 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name clearly targets pour primitives. The description does not mention filtering or exclusions (e.g., 'use this when you need IDs for all pours, not for other types'). It relies on the agent inferring from the primitive-type prefix, which is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.