Retrieves all bus primitive objects from the schematic in the target EDA window, returning an array for further processing.
sch_PrimitiveBus.getAll() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有总线 returns: 总线图元对象数组
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the operation returns a Promise of an ISCH_PrimitiveBus array, which reasonably implies a read-only get-all behavior. However, it does not mention the operation's scope (active window vs specified windowId) or any edge-case behavior, so the disclosure is only partial.
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 short and front-loaded with the API signature and return type. The English/Chinese duplication is minor and does not significantly reduce clarity.
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 get-all operation, the return type is stated and the parameter schema is complete. Still, the description does not clarify that this returns full bus objects versus the ID-only sibling variant, nor does it state the document/window scope explicitly, leaving mild ambiguity for tool selection.
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%, and the schema already explains the args array and windowId default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies a get-all operation on bus primitives and states the return type as an array of ISCH_PrimitiveBus. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_bus_get_all_primitive_id, but the object-array return makes the core purpose understandable.
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 on when to use this tool instead of eda_sch_primitive_bus_get, eda_sch_primitive_bus_get_all_primitive_id, or eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all. It also does not explain when to pass windowId or args, so an agent choosing among the bus/schematic siblings gets no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.