Retrieve all pins on a schematic net using exact, case-insensitive, or unique-substring net name matching.
All pins on a schematic net (exact, case-insensitive, or unique-substring name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net | 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 the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about exact, case-insensitive, and unique-substring name matching, but it does not disclose what happens on no match or how the optional path affects the lookup.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value, especially the parenthetical matching modes, though it is slightly under-specified rather than optimally structured.
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 an output schema, the description is largely adequate for basic invocation with the net parameter. However, the optional path parameter is undocumented, and there is no guidance about multi-sheet or no-match scenarios, leaving meaningful gaps for correct advanced use.
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 carry parameter meaning. The 'net' parameter is reasonably inferable from the tool name and the matching-mode note, but the 'path' parameter is entirely unexplained, including whether it is a file path, sheet path, or something else.
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 (a schematic net) and the result scope (all pins on it), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like sch_nets or list_nets. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the intent is unambiguous. The matching modes further clarify what kind of net-name lookup is supported.
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 similar siblings such as net_info, sch_nets, or search. It implies the net-pin lookup use case but never states alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.