Retrieve a binary embedded object from a schematic by its primitive ID, returning the object or undefined if not found.
sch_PrimitiveObject.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveObject | undefined>
获取二进制内嵌对象
returns: 二进制内嵌对象图元对象，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 discloses the return type and explicitly states that `undefined` means failure, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not cover error behavior, window-targeting implications, or side-effect profile, so the disclosure is adequate but minimal.
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: a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a return note. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it could be better structured if the Chinese purpose and English signature were unified.
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 getter, the description provides the signature, purpose, and failure sentinel, which is workable. But with no output schema and no annotations, and with the real parameter buried inside a generic `args` array, an example or explicit parameter format would be needed for fully confident invocation.
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 coverage is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the actual signature `primitiveIds: string`, which the generic `args` schema hides, but it does not explain the ID format (single string, comma-separated, JSON array), how to encode it into `args`, or how it interacts with `windowId`.
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 names the exact API method (`sch_PrimitiveObject.get`) and clearly identifies the resource (`二进制内嵌对象`), making the tool's purpose apparent. It does not explicitly contrast with `eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all` or explain what a binary embedded object is, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearby `get_all` variant or other primitive getters. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the `get` verb in the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.