Generate a grouped bill of materials from KiCad project data, showing quantities, references, and part numbers by value and footprint, with optional DNP inclusion.
Bill of materials grouped by value (and footprint): quantity, references, and part-number fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| include_dnp | No | ||
| group_by_footprint | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds the grouping behavior and the included fields, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention defaults like include_dnp=false or group_by_footprint=true, nor does it disclose how the output is structured beyond the field names. It adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.
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, concise sentence that directly states the core purpose. It wastes no words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness; it's concise but under-specified. For the conciseness dimension, it earns high marks for efficiency, though it fails to convey needed detail.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return format is partly covered, but the description doesn't explain how parameters affect the output or what typical use cases are. With 3 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal for an agent to confidently use it correctly. It lacks any contextual information about what to expect or how to configure the call.
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 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of path, include_dnp, or group_by_footprint. The schema itself lacks descriptions, only defaults. The description does not compensate for this gap, so an agent has no explicit help understanding what these parameters do or how they affect the output. This is a significant deficiency.
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 produces a bill of materials grouped by value and optionally footprint, with specific fields (quantity, references, part-number). It distinguishes from list_components (raw list) but doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated from siblings like board_summary.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent has no hints about whether to choose this over list_components or board_summary, or what problem it solves that others don't. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.