Skip to main content
Glama
Can-Y
by Can-Y

project

Manage FPGA power estimation projects by opening, creating, saving, and configuring PDM files, including part selection and power analysis export.

Instructions

统一的 PDM 项目操作入口。

Actions: open(path) — 打开 .pdm 项目文件 create(name, part, output_dir) — 创建新的 PDM 项目 close — 关闭当前项目 save(save_path) — 保存项目(可选另存为路径) info — 获取项目基本信息 list_blocks — 列出所有 Block list_architectures — 列出可用 FPGA 器件架构 list_parts(arch, package) — 按架构/封装筛选 Part 型号 list_processes — 列出可用的工艺角类型 select_part(part, process) — 更换 FPGA 器件型号 import_xpe(file, append) — 导入 XPE 文件 export_xdc(file, thermal, rails, overwrite) — 导出功耗约束为 XDC export_power_design(file, overwrite) — 导出 Power Design 为 XML reset — 重置项目(清除所有数据)

Args: action: 操作名称(见上方列表)。 session_id: 目标会话 ID。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo
nameNo
partNo
pathNo
railsNo
actionYes
appendNo
processNo
thermalNoJunction
overwriteNo
save_pathNo
output_dirNo
session_idNodefault
architectureNo
package_filterNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions and their effects only briefly (e.g., 'reset' clears all data), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a list of actions and arguments, but is somewhat lengthy. The overall purpose is stated upfront, but some redundancy exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 15 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain return values or error handling, and the output schema is not leveraged.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides inline parameter hints per action (e.g., open(path), create(name, part, output_dir)), partially compensating. However, not all schema parameters are linked to actions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a unified PDM project operation entry and lists all supported actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the central project operations hub.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'power_design' or 'estimate'. No decision criteria or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Can-Y/PDM_MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server