Inspect a .sch file's components, parameters, and SHA256 checksum before running background edits or simulations, so you can verify the circuit state and avoid unintended changes.
Inspect a .sch file, component parameters and SHA256 before a background edit or run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the pre-edit timing intent and the fact that a SHA256 is produced; it says nothing about how the digest should be used for change detection or what happens on a missing/invalid file.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slight ambiguity remains in the middle clause ('component parameters and SHA256'), which reads as a list of outputs rather than a crisp statement of what is returned or why the digest matters.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining gaps are the sibling disambiguation and path semantics. For a one-parameter read tool that is adequate but leaves the agent to infer which of several schematic-reading tools to call.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'path', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does convey that the path should point to a .sch file, which is real added meaning, but nothing about absolute vs relative paths, workspace roots, or error behavior for a bad path.
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 ('Inspect') and resource (a .sch file), and names what is surfaced: component parameters and a SHA256 digest. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like read_schematic or preview_schematic, so an agent must still guess which inspection tool to pick.
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 phrase 'before a background edit or run' implies a pre-mutation verification workflow, which is genuine usage context. But it never says when to prefer this over read_schematic, preview_schematic, or validate_schematic, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.