Skip to main content
Glama

cad_verify

Run formal verification with SBY or EQY/MCY using an existing config to prove, cover, or check HDL design equivalence and mutations.

Instructions

Run formal verification with SBY, or EQY/MCY with an existing config.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "cad_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
jobYes
modeYes
depthNo
errorNo
traceNo
engineNo
statusNounknown
summaryNo
log_tailNo
artifactsNo
propertiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context by naming SBY/EQY/MCY and noting the config requirement for EQY/MCY, but it does not explain runtime behavior, artifact generation, or what expect_fail and timeout_s imply.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compressed to the point of ambiguity for a complex verification tool, but every word does contribute to the stated purpose.

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?

This is a complex formal-verification tool with a nested request object and 0% schema description coverage. The output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation across modes, configs, timeouts, and expect_fail.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints that config_file is relevant for EQY/MCY; it does not explain the request fields such as mode values, depth, engine, source, timeout_s, or expect_fail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Run formal verification" with named backends SBY, EQY, and MCY. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as cad_check or cad_simulate, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives one usage condition: EQY/MCY require an existing config. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over cad_check or cad_simulate, nor does it guide selection among the available verification modes.

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