Fetch a copper pour fill primitive by its ID to inspect or modify PCB layout data directly from EasyEDA Pro.
pcb_PrimitivePoured.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<IPCB_PrimitivePoured | undefined>
获取覆铜填充
returns: 覆铜填充图元对象，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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that undefined indicates failure, which is useful. However, it doesn't state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, or any side effects. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the return-on-failure.
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?
Extremely concise: signature, short Chinese description, and return type. No wasted words. It front-loads the essential information without 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?
No output schema, so the description must explain the return. It says it returns a copper pour fill primitive object or undefined. However, it doesn't describe the object structure, how to interpret it, or the role of windowId. Given the complexity of the return type and the parameter, more context would be expected for an agent to use it effectively.
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 includes the signature with primitiveIds: string, clarifying the first argument. The schema only has generic args and windowId, so this adds meaning. Yet it doesn't explain what primitiveIds represents (e.g., a single UUID, comma-separated list) or the format of the args array. Coverage is improved but not fully compensated.
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 gets a copper pour fill primitive (获取覆铜填充), with the method signature pcb_PrimitivePoured.get. It's distinct from the 'get_all' siblings by implying a single fetch via primitiveIds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get or other variants.
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 like get_all or pour_get. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether IDs are required, or the context in which it's appropriate. The description is purely descriptive of the action, not its use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.