Retrieve all rectangle primitive IDs from the schematic to enable batch processing or targeted edits. Returns an array of IDs for the active or specified EDA window.
sch_PrimitiveRectangle.getAllPrimitiveId() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有矩形的图元 ID returns: 矩形的图元 ID 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 full behavioral burden. It includes the method signature and returns Promise<Array<string>>, and 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state document/window scope, behavior when no rectangles exist, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 and front-loaded: method signature, Chinese purpose, and return type in three compact lines. No filler is present, though the signature partly duplicates the tool name.
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 return type and purpose are present and the schema explains windowId and args. However, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no explicit scope qualification, the definition is only minimally complete.
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%: both args and windowId have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter explanation and even shows an empty parameter list in the signature, leaving all semantic weight to the 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?
Description states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('矩形的图元 ID') and explicitly says the return value is an array of rectangle primitive IDs. It is distinguishable from eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_get_all by focusing on IDs, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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 such as eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_get_all or eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.