Locate any string across KiCad board elements including references, values, footprint names, fields, net names, and silkscreen text.
Find where a string occurs on the board: references, values, footprint names, fields, net names, silkscreen text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the scope ('on the board') and the list of searchable fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations beyond what the output schema might convey, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the search targets without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-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?
While the core action is clear and read-only behavior is covered by annotations, the tool has three parameters that are entirely undocumented in the description. Without guidance on 'path' and 'limit', an agent may call the tool incorrectly or misunderstand its capabilities. The output schema exists, but parameter semantics remain a significant gap, making the description incomplete for confident usage.
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%. The description only implies that 'query' is the search string (since it talks about a string), but it provides no explanation for 'path' or 'limit'. The agent has no idea what 'path' means (likely a filter scope) or what 'limit' controls (likely result count), and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Find where a string occurs') and resource ('on the board'), and enumerates the specific search targets (references, values, footprint names, fields, net names, silkscreen text). It distinguishes from siblings like net_info or list_components by covering multiple field types, but doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, so it's not 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this search tool versus more specific siblings like net_info or list_components. The description doesn't mention any exclusions, preferred use cases, or conditions under which another tool would be better, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.