Retrieve all net names from the active EasyEDA Pro schematic for inspection or validation. Returns an array of net name strings.
sch_Net.getAllNetsName() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有网络的网络名称 remarks: ADD since EDA v4.2 returns: 网络名称数组
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type and the version in which the API was added, but it omits important context such as which window/document scope 'all nets' refers to, whether it is safe/read-only, and what happens when no nets exist.
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 and front-loaded with the API signature and purpose. The supplementary version and return-type notes are useful, though the bilingual phrasing introduces slight redundancy.
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 read-only, no-argument tool, the description provides the essential return type and signature. However, it does not clarify the scope of 'all nets' relative to sibling tools, and the lack of annotations leaves some behavioral context under-specified.
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 function signature `getAllNetsName()` conveys that the underlying method takes no positional arguments, which helps an agent know the `args` array should be empty. The schema already describes `windowId`, so the description adds meaningful parameter information beyond the schema.
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 the action clearly: it retrieves all network names via `sch_Net.getAllNetsName()` and specifies the return type as `Promise<Array<string>>` / a network-name array. This is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like `eda_sch_net_get_all_nets` or `eda_sch_net_get_current_project_all_nets`.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple net-related siblings (`eda_sch_net_get_all_nets`, `eda_sch_net_get_current_project_all_nets`, `eda_sch_net_get_net`), but the description does not mention scope, context, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.