Retrieve all currently selected schematic primitives in an EasyEDA Pro window to inspect or process the active selection. Returns the primitive objects for the specified or active window.
sch_SelectControl.getAllSelectedPrimitives() -> Promise<Array> 查询所有已选中图元的图元对象 returns: 所有已选中图元的图元对象
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only restates the method signature and return type. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, what happens with an empty selection, or whether a schematic document must be active.
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 short and front-loaded with the exact API signature. The Chinese line and the 'returns' line are redundant, but the overall size is appropriate.
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?
Despite being a simple read tool, it sits among very similar selection tools with no output schema. The description fails to explain how it differs from `get_selected_primitives` or when to use the ID-returning variants, leaving an agent to guess.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level explanation; `args` and `windowId` are already documented in the schema, and the description doesn't clarify what arguments should be passed for this particular method.
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: it queries all currently selected schematic primitives and returns them as ISCH_Primitive objects. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `_primitive_id` variants by specifying object return, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with `get_selected_primitives`.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many similar selection-control tools. The description doesn't mention when `get_selected_primitives` or `get_all_selected_primitives_primitive_id` should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.