easyeda_run_self_testRun an internal self-test to verify server integrity, configuration, and bridge connectivity for EasyEDA MCP operations.
Run internal self-test to verify server integrity, config, and bridge connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checks | Yes | ||
| passed | Yes |
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, meaning this 'self-test' is neither a pure read nor repeat-safe, yet the description frames it as a harmless verification with no note of what state it touches or why it is non-idempotent. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the mutation/non-idempotent aspect goes entirely undisclosed.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists the verification targets with zero filler. Nothing redundant or buried.
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 no explanation, and with no parameters the description needn't cover arguments. What is missing is differentiation from the several sibling diagnostic tools and any hint of the non-idempotent behavior the annotations flag.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.
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 ('Run') and resource ('internal self-test') and enumerates what it verifies: server integrity, config, and bridge connectivity. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like easyeda_health_check or easyeda_bridge_status, which the described checks overlap with substantially.
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 on when to run this versus easyeda_health_check, easyeda_bridge_status, or easyeda_observability_report, and no prerequisites or expected cost/duration. The agent must guess which diagnostic tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.