Delete specified PCB vias from the current design. Provide primitive IDs or via objects to remove them, returning success status. Cleans up unwanted vias directly in the EDA window.
pcb_PrimitiveVia.delete(primitiveIds: string | IPCB_PrimitiveVia | Array | Array) -> Promise 删除过孔 returns: 删除操作是否成功
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value but does not mention that deletion is destructive/permanent, what happens on invalid IDs, whether connectivity is affected, or what conditions cause a false return. It only restates the mutation implied by 'delete'.
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 compact: a code signature, a one-line Chinese purpose statement, and a return-value note. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded in the signature.
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 delete operation, the core invocation detail and return value are present, and the schema covers the wrapper parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks side-effect context, failure behavior, and guidance on selecting this tool over related via operations, so it is only minimally complete.
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 provides a generic 'args' array, so the description's signature adds meaningful parameter detail: the first argument can be a string, an IPCB_PrimitiveVia, or arrays of either. This goes beyond the schema's 100% coverage baseline by explaining the actual accepted types for the delete target.
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 ('delete'), a specific resource ('via', 过孔), and the exact API signature. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_via_create, eda_pcb_primitive_via_modify, and eda_pcb_primitive_via_get.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling via operations or other delete tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned; the usage context must be inferred entirely from the word 'delete' and the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.