Generate a bill of materials from an Altium project, optionally for a design variant; enable grouping to merge identical parts into consolidated BOM lines.
Bill of materials (optionally for a design variant). grouped=True merges identical parts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grouped | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| variant | No |
| 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that grouped=True merges identical parts and that a design variant can be specified; it omits permissions, read-only nature, ordering, whether the BOM is live or cached, and other operational traits.
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 with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the grouped behavior. Its terseness reflects under-specification rather than structural excess.
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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. Although an output schema exists so return values need not be described, the missing project and pattern semantics and absent sibling guidance leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 explain all four parameters. It partially explains variant and grouped, but the required project parameter and the pattern parameter are completely unaddressed, leaving significant semantic gaps.
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 that the tool returns a bill of materials, optionally scoped to a design variant, and explains that grouped=True merges identical parts. It identifies the resource and key behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_components or get_component.
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 mention of an optional design variant implies when the variant parameter matters, and grouped=True describes one mode of use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use get_bom versus alternatives like search_components, get_component, or export_netlist_json.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.