easyeda_board_layersList all PCB design layers—signal, power, plane, and mechanical—by project to inspect board stackup and layout.
List all layers in the PCB design including signal, power, plane, and mechanical layers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| layers | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| not_available | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.2Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.19.1Output schema / properties / errorAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.19.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the kinds of layers returned, but says nothing about scoping, permissions, or what an empty/partial layer list would mean.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumeration of layer types packed in at the end. Nothing wasted.
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, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. For a simple read-only list tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only the projectId linkage and a disambiguation from board_stackup.
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 never mentions projectId or any parameter. The single required parameter name is self-explanatory, but with zero coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not do so.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (PCB layers) and enumerates the layer categories returned (signal, power, plane, mechanical). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby easyeda_board_stackup sibling, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as easyeda_board_stackup for stackup-specific questions. The agent is left to infer the tool's place in the PCB inspection family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.