Retrieve detailed schematic component data by reference, including fields, library part, sheet, and pin net connections.
One schematic symbol: fields, library part, sheet, and every pin with the net it is on (blank = unconnected).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful output convention ('blank = unconnected') but does not disclose selection behavior, error cases, or how path/ref interact. No contradiction with annotations.
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 tightly written sentence, with the key resource first and the detail packed after the colon. No filler or redundancy.
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 and annotations cover the return shape and idempotence, and the description communicates the essential payload. However, selection semantics and usage context are missing, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient for an agent choosing among sibling tools.
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?
Both parameters (ref, path) have no schema descriptions and the description never mentions them, so an agent cannot learn how to target a component. With 0% schema coverage, the description was responsible for explaining these but doesn't. The 'one' wording only hints that a selector is needed.
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 names the resource ('schematic symbol') and enumerates its contents (fields, library part, sheet, pins with nets), so an agent knows what the tool returns. The word 'One' distinguishes it from the plural sch_components, but the lack of an explicit verb and no distinction from get_component keep it from a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternatives. 'One' weakly implies a single-component use case, but the agent is not told when to prefer sch_component over get_component or sch_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.