Retrieve package pin assignments for user signals, including pin, bank, voltage, I/O standard, and pull settings. Optionally includes core-to-periphery signal lists.
Package pin assignments of user signals (pin, bank, voltage, I/O standard, pull) from the Interface Designer pinout. include_core_interface adds the core<->periphery signal list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| include_core_interface | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond this by explaining the effect of the include_core_interface parameter—that it adds the core<->periphery signal list—which is valuable behavioral information not captured in annotations.
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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter-specific behavior is isolated in the second. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse at a glance.
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 read-only getter with two parameters and no output schema, this description covers the essential details: what data is returned, its source, and the behavior of the optional parameter. It lacks only minor details like return format or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains include_core_interface's effect clearly, but it does not expand on the project parameter beyond what its simple name implies. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation but not fully.
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 retrieves package pin assignments for user signals, listing the specific attributes (pin, bank, voltage, I/O standard, pull) and sources them from the Interface Designer pinout. While it distinguishes itself from interface design/block tools by focusing on pin assignments, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 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?
The description implies its use when needing pin assignment data from the Interface Designer, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like get_interface_design or get_interface_block. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, so the guidance is implicit rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.