List schematic components with values, footprints, sheets, and DNP flags. Filter by reference, value, sheet, or path using substrings or globs.
List schematic symbols with value, footprint, sheet and DNP flag. Filters are substrings or globs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sheet | No | ||
| value | 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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying that filters are substrings or globs and listing the output fields, which helps the agent understand matching semantics and what the result contains.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and key result are front-loaded, and the filter behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?
An output schema exists and the read-only behavior is covered by annotations, so the core invocation is understandable. However, the description does not clarify parameter semantics or when to choose this tool over sibling list/component tools, leaving noticeable gaps for a five-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage.
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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like 'ref', 'path', 'limit', 'sheet', or 'value'. It only states that filters are substrings or globs, which is relevant but does not map clearly to the five parameters.
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 ('List') and resource ('schematic symbols') and names the returned fields: value, footprint, sheet, and DNP flag. This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling 'list_components' or 'sch_component'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_components', 'get_component', or 'sch_component'. It only mentions filtering behavior, not selection criteria or exclusions, so an agent is left to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.