Retrieve PCB overview details—board size, copper layers and stackup, primitive counts, net classes, differential pairs, and design rules—to inspect an Altium project without Altium Designer.
PCB overview: board size, copper layers in use with stackup, primitive counts, net classes, differential pairs and design rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| include_rules | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload by listing the data categories returned. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, says nothing about cost or breadth (a full-board overview is likely expensive), and gives no hint about what the include_rules toggle actually changes.
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 beginning with 'PCB overview' followed by a compact inventory of contents. Every phrase maps to actual returned data, with no filler.
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?
The content inventory compensates reasonably for the absent output schema, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves an agent uninformed about cost, read-only safety, and the meaning of both inputs. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to invoke it confidently.
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% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'Design rules' in the content list loosely hints at include_rules, but the required 'project' parameter is entirely unexplained — an agent gets no guidance on whether it takes a name, path, or ID.
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 names a specific resource (PCB) and enumerates the contents of the returned overview — board size, stackup, net classes, differential pairs, design rules — which clearly distinguishes it from get_net or pcb_placement. The retrieval verb is only implied by 'overview', but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can pick it over siblings.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as project_info or pcb_placement, and no prerequisites are given. The word 'overview' weakly implies a first-look summary call, but nothing tells the agent how to decide between this and the sibling PCB tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.