Retrieve all copper pour fill primitives from the active EDA window, returning an array of their objects for inspection or manipulation.
pcb_PrimitivePoured.getAll() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有覆铜填充图元 returns: 覆铜填充图元对象数组
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return type and does not mention read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or any operational details. The name implies a read operation, but the description adds minimal 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 concise (two short lines) but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It starts with the API signature, then Chinese description, then return type, which is acceptable but not optimally organized for an English agent. It is not verbose but is under-specified.
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?
Given no output schema and a simple get-all operation, the description does not explain what the returned array objects contain or the context of when this is needed. It does not clarify the distinction between 'poured' and 'pour' primitives, leaving a completeness gap for an agent navigating many sibling tools.
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%, so both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions. The tool description adds no specific meaning about these parameters for this tool; the 'args' description is a generic wrapper. Per the baseline rule, since schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb (get) and resource (all poured copper fill primitives) via '获取所有覆铜填充图元', which is clear. It distinguishes from the sibling 'eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all' through the word 'poured' but does not explicitly differentiate in text, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 alternatives like 'eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all' or other get_all tools. It does not mention any exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.