WaveQ

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_index

Build indexes for VCD waveform files to enable efficient querying of signal values and transitions at configurable levels of detail.

Instructions

Explicitly build expensive indexes. Levels: changes, runs, edges, full.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "build_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	No	changes, runs, edges, or full
`rebuild`	No	Force rebuild
`signals`	No	Optional signal subset; currently unsupported
`vcd_path`	No	Optional path to .vcd or .vcd.gz
`cache_dir`	No	Optional cache directory

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`confidence`	No
`limitations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It warns indexes are 'expensive' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like destructiveness, required permissions, or impact on existing indexes. For a potentially costly operation, more transparency is needed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose and listing levels. Maximally concise.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and presence of output schema, the description omits important context such as when to use each level, prerequisites, return value description, or potential side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and 'expensive' operations, this is insufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and description mentions the level parameter values. However, it adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema, e.g., not explaining what each level entails or how rebuild differs from default behavior.

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?

Description clearly states 'build expensive indexes' with enumerated levels (changes, runs, edges, full), distinguishing it from sibling tools like index_status. However, it could be more specific about what 'indexes' means in this waveform context.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Sibling tools like index_status exist but are not mentioned. The description only states to use this tool to explicitly build indexes, but lacks suggestions on prerequisites or situations where building is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server