Retrieve counts and basic metadata for the open PCB, including element and copper layer counts, board file name, and bounding box extents in millimetres.
Return counts and basic metadata for the open PCB.
Includes element counts, copper layer count, board file name, and bounding box extents in millimetres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' and the listed output fields imply a safe read-only query, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether an open board is required; it is adequate but not rich.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence efficiently lists the returned data without unnecessary detail.
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?
Given a simple zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It summarizes the purpose and return contents, and the output schema handles detailed return-value documentation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema is self-explanatory and there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return counts and basic metadata for the open PCB.' It also enumerates the included data (element counts, copper layer count, board file name, bounding box extents), which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as list_board_layers and get_bounding_box.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It implies this is for summarizing the currently open PCB, but it does not say when to prefer it over get_bounding_box, get_board_outline, or other summary/list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.