List nets on a KiCad board, showing pad count, routed length, and via count. Sort results by pads, length, or name.
Nets on the board with pad count, routed length and via count. sort = pads | length | name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| sort | No | pads | |
| limit | No | ||
| filter | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the output payload (pad count, routed length, via count) and the sortable columns, but it adds no context about filter/limit behavior or how the listing is scoped by path.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the resource first and the sort syntax second. 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 output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety, but with four parameters at 0% coverage, the description leaves path and filter semantics unexplained and provides no positioning relative to the many net-related siblings. An agent calling this with a filter or path value would have to guess the expected format.
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. It documents the sort parameter's allowed values ('pads | length | name'), which is genuinely useful given the schema offers no enum. However, path, filter, and limit remain entirely unexplained in both the description and the schema.
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 identifies the resource ('nets on the board') and the payload (pad count, routed length, via count), making the purpose evident among PCB-focused siblings. The verb 'list' is implied by the name rather than stated in a full sentence, and differentiation from sch_nets/net_info is implicit via 'on the board' rather than explicit.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as sch_nets, net_info, list_components, or bom. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative tool references — the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.