Run KiCad PCB design rule checks to detect silkscreen problems like reference designators on pads or overlapping silkscreen. Set all=true to check every rule.
KiCad DRC of a .kicad_pcb. Silkscreen findings by default (reference on pads, on other silkscreen), all=true for everything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| board | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default behavior (silkscreen findings only) and the effect of all=true, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format, but 'DRC' and 'findings' imply a non-mutating analysis.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the default-vs-all behavior is packed into the second sentence without redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it operates on, what it checks by default, and how to broaden the check. It leaves minor gaps around output shape and exact board path semantics, but these are not critical for invoking the tool.
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 compensate. It does: 'a .kicad_pcb' clarifies the board parameter, and 'all=true for everything' explains the boolean parameter. It does not detail path/format expectations for board, but the core semantics of both parameters are conveyed.
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 names a specific resource (a .kicad_pcb file) and a specific operation (KiCad DRC), which clearly distinguishes it from schematic-focused siblings like sch_lint. It also states the default scope (silkscreen findings), making the tool's purpose concrete.
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 makes clear this is for PCB DRC, so an agent can infer when to choose it over sch_lint or pcb_render. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource and operation are specific enough to route usage correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.