Get a full overview of a KiCad project: file list, board dimensions, component counts, and schematic sheets. Use it as the starting point for any project data query.
Overview of a KiCad project folder: files, board size and counts, schematic sheets. Start here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already communicate that this call is safe and repeatable, so the description bears less burden. It adds useful output content (files, board statistics, sheets) but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as path resolution or error conditions.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource and the information returned, ending with a crisp workflow directive. No filler or repetition.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what it returns and where it fits in the workflow. The only notable omission is path-argument detail, which is minor given the schema's simple optional 'path' property.
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 input schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. Naming the target a 'KiCad project folder' clarifies that the path should point to a project folder, but it doesn't explain expected format, whether null means the current project, or what happens if the folder is invalid.
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 exactly what the tool delivers—an overview of a KiCad project folder—and enumerates concrete contents: files, board size/counts, and schematic sheets. This makes it easy to distinguish from finer-grained siblings like board_summary and schematic_summary, and 'Start here' positions it as the entry point.
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?
'Start here' gives an explicit usage cue that this is the first tool to call before diving into more specific tools. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the entry-point instruction is clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.