easyeda_bom_exportExport a project's bill of materials to a CSV, JSON, or XLSX file on disk for manufacturing and sourcing workflows.
Export the bill of materials to a file on disk in the specified format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | csv | |
| filePath | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | ||
| exported | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| entry_count | No | ||
| 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"v0.19.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already tell the agent this performs a non-destructive write, and the description confirms it writes a file to disk. It does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, whether directories are created, or permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a file-writing tool.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is a consequence of under-specification rather than deliberate density.
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?
Return values are covered by the output schema, but the description leaves the required projectId parameter and format options entirely unexplained, and gives no usage context among four-plus BOM siblings. For a 3-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate.
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 the load. It hints at 'specified format' (the format enum) and 'file on disk' (filePath) but never explains the required projectId, what project identity means here, or the allowed format values.
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 (export), resource (bill of materials), and destination (a file on disk), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name or contrast with the adjacent siblings (easyeda_bom_generate, easyeda_bom_validate, easyeda_bom_quality_report), so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Given several BOM-related siblings (generate, validate, sourcing, quality_report), the description should say when to export vs. generate, but it offers no selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.