Convert a specified Altium schematic sheet to SVG and PNG images without Altium Designer; returns file paths so AI assistants can inspect the drawing.
Render one schematic sheet (file name, e.g. 'sterowanie.SchDoc') to SVG and PNG. Returns file paths; open the PNG with the Read tool to look at it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| png | No | ||
| sheet | Yes | ||
| out_dir | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| png_width | 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 usefully discloses that the tool writes files and returns paths and that the PNG is the visual artifact to inspect, but it omits whether files are overwritten, what the default output location is, and how long rendering takes.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste; the output formats and the follow-up action (open the PNG) are front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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?
With no output schema, the description rightly states that file paths are returned, which covers the return-value gap. But for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of png, out_dir, and png_width leaves an agent unable to choose non-default values 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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'sheet' parameter via a filename example, but says nothing about the png boolean toggle, out_dir, or png_width, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.
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 and resource ('Render one schematic sheet ... to SVG and PNG') and names the expected input format with a concrete example ('sterowanie.SchDoc'). It is clearly distinguishable from render_pcb, though the sibling is never named.
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 'one schematic sheet' phrasing implies per-sheet usage, and the note to open the PNG with the Read tool gives a clear downstream action. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus render_pcb or what to do with the SVG output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.