Render a PCB to SVG or PNG, optionally selecting layers, and return file paths for visual inspection and review.
Render the PCB to SVG/PNG. layers = layer names to show (e.g. ['TOP','TOP_OVERLAY','MULTI_LAYER'],
'TOPOVERLAY' style also accepted); None renders all layers. Returns file paths; open the PNG with the Read tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| png | No | ||
| layers | No | ||
| out_dir | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| png_width | No | ||
| pad_designators | No |
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 burden. It does disclose useful behavior: it returns file paths and that `layers: None` renders all layers. It omits where files are written by default, whether the filesystem is modified, cost/latency for a 3000px render, and any dependency on external tooling.
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?
Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the one parameter that needs explanation, then the return behavior. No filler sentences.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return (file paths), which is the key gap-filler. But with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what `out_dir`, `png_width`, or `pad_designators` do, nor what the default output location is.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains `layers` well (name format, alias tolerance, None semantics) but says nothing about `png`, `out_dir`, `png_width`, or `pad_designators`, which are left to a bare title and default value.
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 concrete verb+resource pair ("Render the PCB") and the output formats (SVG/PNG). A sibling render_schematic exists, and the resource noun separates them implicitly, but the description never states the distinction explicitly.
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 guidance on when to render versus use pcb_info, pcb_placement, or render_schematic, and no exclusions. The only actionable usage hint is the workflow note "open the PNG with the Read tool," which is helpful but downstream of tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.