Retrieve a wire primitive from the schematic by its ID. Returns the wire object or undefined if the ID is invalid or missing.
sch_PrimitiveWire.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveWire | undefined>
获取导线
returns: 导线图元对象，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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful return contract: Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveWire | undefined> and that undefined means retrieval failure. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, and it omits behavior for invalid or missing primitiveIds.
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 one-line return explanation, with no filler. The '获取导线' phrase is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall the structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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 get-by-id tool following the standard primitive get/get_all/get_all_primitive_id sibling pattern, the description adequately states input and return semantics. However, with no output schema, the ISCH_PrimitiveWire object shape is undocumented, and the description does not hint at how to obtain primitiveIds (e.g., via the get_all_primitive_id siblings).
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some value by showing the official signature 'primitiveIds: string', which tells the agent what to place inside the generic args array, but it adds nothing else beyond 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?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('获取导线' / get wire) and shows the signature sch_PrimitiveWire.get(primitiveIds), so an agent knows this fetches a wire primitive. However, it mostly restates the tool name and does not distinguish this from eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all or the generic eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all (when all wires are needed) or the generic get-by-id helpers. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.