Fetch schematic component primitives by their IDs to retrieve device properties from the active EDA window.
sch_PrimitiveComponent.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveComponent | undefined>
获取器件
returns: 器件图元对象，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?
The description mentions that `undefined` indicates fetch failure, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral details such as side effects, error handling, or the structure of the returned object. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 short—three lines with a signature, a one-line Chinese purpose, and a return note. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though the mixing of code signature and natural language could be more structured.
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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a component primitive is, how to format primitiveIds, or what the returned object contains. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional information.
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 description adds the parameter name 'primitiveIds' and type 'string' via the signature, which is not explicitly in the schema (which only has generic args array and windowId). However, it doesn't clarify the format (e.g., comma-separated, JSON array) or semantics of this parameter, so it only partially compensates for the generic 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 '获取器件' (get device) and provides a function signature indicating a getter, but it's vague about what a 'device' is and doesn't differentiate from siblings like eda_sch_primitive_component_get_all. The tool name makes the purpose clear, but the description adds little beyond that.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this over other getters or operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.