Retrieve complete details for a PCB component by its reference designator, including position, bounding box, courtyard, fields, 3D model, and pad net assignments.
Full detail for one footprint by reference: position, bbox, courtyard, fields, 3D model, every pad with net.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| path | 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the lookup key ('by reference') and the exact scope of returned data, going beyond what the annotations alone provide. No contradiction exists.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose comes first, followed by a compact list of returned content. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers the return payload well, and the output schema likely fills in structural details. However, the ambiguous 'path' parameter and lack of explicit guidance on when to supply it leave a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It clarifies 'ref' through 'by reference', but the 'path' parameter is entirely unexplained—its type, default null, and purpose are left to the agent to guess.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one footprint by reference.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (position, bbox, courtyard, fields, 3D model, pads with nets), which clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_components.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving complete detail about a single footprint rather than a summary or list. However, the description does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when only a summary is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.