Retrieve all parameters of currently selected PCB primitives, enabling inspection of selected elements' properties in the active EDA window.
pcb_SelectControl.getSelectedPrimitives() -> Promise<Array> 查询选中图元的所有参数 returns: 选中图元的所有参数 [已弃用]
| 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?
The description mentions the return type (Promise<Array<object>>) and the deprecated status, which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, required conditions, or what 'parameters' actually contains, and there are no annotations to compensate.
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 redundant, repeating '查询选中图元的所有参数' and 'returns: 选中图元的所有参数' almost identically. The function signature line adds noise without clarifying structure.
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, the description lacks essential context: the format of the returned 'parameters' is not explained, and no alternative is suggested despite the deprecation. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this gap more significant.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'args' or 'windowId' parameters, so it stays at 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 states it queries all parameters of selected primitives, a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like eda_pcb_select_control_get_all_selected_primitives, and the naming ambiguity between 'primitives' and 'parameters' could confuse an agent.
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 its siblings. The deprecated marker is present but no alternative is suggested, so an agent has no way to know whether to prefer another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.