Registers a custom external API in the EDA window, letting plugins or scripts expose functions for external calls.
sys_ExternalApi.register(namespace: string, apiName: string, callFn: (...args: any[]) => any | Promise, help?: ISYS_ExternalApiHelp) -> void 注册一个上层接口
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only gives the signature and a brief Chinese phrase, omitting side effects, error behavior, or what happens on duplicate registration. It does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it offers minimal behavioral insight.
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 a single line with the signature and a short Chinese phrase. It is concise and front-loaded with the signature, but it lacks structured explanations or separation of concepts. It is efficient but could be better organized.
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 registration tool, the description provides the signature but not enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain what namespace and apiName should represent, how to provide a valid callFn, or what the help object contains. The sibling unregister tool exists, but no cross-referencing is given. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a void function, but the missing usage details make it incomplete.
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%, but the schema's descriptions are generic ('按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组'). The description adds the actual function signature parameters (namespace, apiName, callFn, help) and their types, which clarifies what should go into the args array. However, it does not explain how to construct the args array beyond the order or the semantics of each parameter in context.
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 tool registers an external API (注册一个上层接口) and provides the full function signature. It distinguishes from the sibling eda_sys_external_api_unregister by name and purpose, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context on when it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.