Retrieves all properties of a schematic primitive using its unique ID. Specify the primitive ID to access its full attribute set.
sch_Primitive.getPrimitiveByPrimitiveId(id: string) -> Promise<ISCH_Primitive | undefined> 获取指定 ID 的图元的所有属性 returns: 图元的所有属性
| 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. It discloses that the function returns a Promise resolving to ISCH_Primitive or undefined, implying it returns undefined when not found. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects or dependencies like windowId. The return type is specified, but other behavioral aspects are omitted.
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 concise, containing a code signature and a one-sentence explanation. It is front-loaded with the signature and is efficient, but it mixes languages (code signature and Chinese text) and does not structure the information in a clear prose form. Still, it is appropriately brief.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not explain how to pass the primitive ID (which goes into the args array), nor does it mention the windowId parameter or any prerequisites. The description is too thin to be fully usable by an agent without additional inference.
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 input schema describes args as a JSON array in official signature order and windowId as optional. The description does not explain how to construct the args array (e.g., that it should contain the primitive ID as a string). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, and the critical parameter (id) is not explicitly explained.
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 verb 'get', the resource (primitive by ID), and that it returns all properties of that primitive. It distinguishes itself from the plural variant (get_primitives_by_primitive_id) and the type variant (get_primitive_type_by_primitive_id) by specifying a single ID and all properties.
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 the plural or type variants. The description does not mention alternatives or any conditions for selection. An agent would have to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.