Retrieves a PCB region primitive by its ID, returning the region object for inspection or modification. Returns undefined if not found.
pcb_PrimitiveRegion.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveRegion | undefined>
获取区域
returns: 区域图元对象，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 full burden. It does disclose that undefined indicates failure, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires a specific PCB document to be active. Minimal disclosure beyond the return/failure behavior.
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 very concise: a signature, a one-line Chinese phrase, and a return type explanation. It is front-loaded with the signature and has no unnecessary fluff, though the mixed-language content might reduce accessibility slightly.
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 simple getter tool, the description adequately explains the return type and failure behavior. However, it lacks details on how to specify primitiveIds (e.g., format, multiple IDs) and any required context like an active PCB document. With no output schema, the description covers the essentials but could be more explicit.
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 already documents both args and windowId (100% coverage). The description adds the signature with primitiveIds: string, but does not clarify how this maps to the args array (e.g., whether it is a single ID or comma-separated list). Thus it adds little beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 retrieves a region primitive (获取区域) and includes a signature showing it takes a primitiveIds string and returns a region primitive object or undefined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all and get_all_primitive_id, though it does not explicitly say it fetches a single region by ID.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all or eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all_primitive_id. The description gives no context on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.