Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gowin-mcp

gowin-mcp

by Papipapito
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Resource usage

gowin_resources
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract resource usage from a Gowin EDA build report for one build, including logic, CLS, registers, BSRAM, DSP, I/O banks, and clock resources. Parse text or JSON by project path.

Instructions

Full resource usage for one build: logic, CLS, registers, BSRAM, DSP, I/O banks and clock resources.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "gowin_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoWhen several builds share one impl/pnr/, pick this one by name (the <name> of <name>.rpt.txt). Default: the most recent, with the others listed under siblings.
pathYesPath to the build: the project directory, its impl/ directory, impl/pnr/ itself, or the .rpt.txt. Either kind of slash.
formatNoOutput format. Default text: a compact rendering, returned as the only content. json: the full JSON as text and as structuredContent.
includeBanksNoInclude the I/O bank and clock resource tables. Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Output format. Defaults to text, which is far more compact."New value: +"Output format. Default text: a compact rendering, returned as the only content. json: the full JSON as text and as structuredContent."
    • changedInput schema / properties / includeBanks / description
      Previous value: -"Include the I/O bank and clock resource tables."New value: +"Include the I/O bank and clock resource tables. Default true."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When several builds share one impl/pnr/, pick this one by name (the <name> of <name>.rpt.txt). Default: the most recent, with the others listed under siblings.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Path to the build: the project directory, its impl/ directory, or the .rpt.txt itself."New value: +"Path to the build: the project directory, its impl/ directory, impl/pnr/ itself, or the .rpt.txt. Either kind of slash."
  2. First observedv0.1.0-beta.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile need not be repeated. The description adds the report's contents but says nothing about preconditions (a completed build must exist on disk) or failure behavior for a bad path.

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?

One compact sentence with the scope ('one build') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though a bare noun phrase with no verb leaves the action slightly implicit.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the data categories returned, and annotations cover safety. But error conditions, path-precondition behavior, and the text-vs-json output difference are left entirely to the schema descriptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, with rich per-parameter docs for path, name, format and includeBanks, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names the specific resource ('resource usage for one build') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (logic, CLS, registers, BSRAM, DSP, I/O banks, clock resources), so an agent can tell this apart from gowin_timing or gowin_pins by content. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent infers 'call this when you need resource/utilization data for a build.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like gowin_summary or gowin_compare, which likely overlap in scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools