Retrieve all property names from every component in a schematic to enumerate available attributes. Use this to inspect or validate component properties across the design.
sch_PrimitiveComponent.getAllPropertyNames() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有器件的所有属性名称集合 returns: 所有器件的所有属性名称集合
| 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 (Promise<Array<string>>) and that it is a getter, implying no side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, performance implications, or whether the result is unique or sorted. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 brief, consisting of a method signature and a short Chinese phrase. It is not verbose and gets to the point quickly. It loses a point because it omits any usage context, making it too terse for a full understanding, but it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a schema covering parameters, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return type and purpose. However, it does not explain the scope (e.g., applies to the current schematic document) or any constraints, and there is no output schema to detail the return format. An agent might need additional context to know that this operates on the active schematic, which is implied by the name but not stated.
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 already documents both parameters (args and windowId) with descriptions in Chinese, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify how the 'args' array should be used for this method, which has no explicit parameters in the signature.
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 states the operation: it retrieves all property names of all components (获取所有器件的所有属性名称集合). It specifies the resource (components) and the returned data (property names). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_component_get_all which returns components, not property names. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, so it loses a point for not differentiating further.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., active schematic document), or when a different getter might be more suitable. The description only states what it does, not how to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.