Lock or unlock a PCB footprint by reference designator to prevent accidental moves or enable repositioning during KiCad design.
Lock or unlock a footprint.
Args: reference: Reference designator. locked: True to lock, False to unlock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locked | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about what locking actually does (e.g., whether it prevents move/rotate/delete), permissions required, or reversibility, which matters for a mutation tool.
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 actionable statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact with zero wasted prose. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter toggle.
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 needn't be described, but with no annotations the description should still explain the consequences of locking. For a simple toggle the gaps are modest but present.
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 and it does: it defines 'reference' as the reference designator and 'locked' as True=lock / False=unlock. Both parameters get usable semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 pair (lock/unlock) and a clearly named resource (footprint), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the related sibling set_items_locked, which could plausibly do the same job.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_items_locked. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.