Check if a language is supported in EasyEDA Pro by passing its code. Returns true for supported languages, false for unsupported ones.
sys_I18n.isLanguageSupported(language: string) -> boolean 检查语言是否受支持 returns: 是否受支持
| 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 does not describe error behavior for invalid or unsupported language codes, case sensitivity, or whether the function performs exact matching. It only states the signature and return type, which is superficial.
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 brief and to the point, with the function signature front-loaded and the purpose stated clearly in Chinese. It conveys the essential purpose without filler. It could be slightly improved by separating the signature from the explanation, but overall it is efficient.
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 predicate function with one logical parameter, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the operation and return type. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what a 'supported language' means exactly, which would help an agent call the tool with confidence. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.
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?
The schema declares both 'args' (array) and 'windowId' (string) but provides no descriptions for individual parameters beyond their types. Since schema coverage is reported as 100%, the baseline is high. The description names the 'language' parameter and its expected type, which meaningfully compenates for the schema's lack of per-parameter descriptions.
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 the tool's purpose: checking whether a language is supported by the i18n system, and it returns a boolean. The name 'is_language_supported' and the description align, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like get_all_supported_languages and get_current_language. However, the description is terse and does not explicitly differentiate it from those related i18n 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sys_i18n_get_all_supported_languages. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description is purely a function signature and return type statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.