Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gowin-mcp

gowin-mcp

by Papipapito
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Build summary

gowin_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize one Gowin EDA build: device, resource usage, fMax per clock, timing violations, bitstream header, and SDC constraints from a report path.

Instructions

Headline report for one build: device, resource usage, fMax per clock, every timing violation, the bitstream header (.fs) and what the .sdc declares. Start here.

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_summary"
  }
}

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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."
    • 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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about report contents but nothing about cost, file-access requirements, or failure modes (e.g. what happens if the path contains no build), so it stays at baseline.

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?

One dense content-enumerating sentence followed by 'Start here.' — zero waste, front-loaded with the tool's role before the field list, and no redundancy with the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return payload (device, resources, fMax, violations, .fs header, .sdc contents), which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only gap is routing guidance against the other seven gowin_* tools, which is left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries rich guidance (defaults, the multi-build naming rule, accepted path forms, slash flexibility, format semantics), so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no parameter detail of its own, which is acceptable here — baseline plus the strong schema warrants a 4.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Headline report for one build') and enumerates the concrete contents (device, resource usage, fMax per clock, timing violations, .fs header, .sdc declarations), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gowin_timing or gowin_resources, which are subsets of this report.

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?

'Start here' is an implied-usage hint suggesting this is the entry point, which is directionally useful. But it never states when to prefer a narrower sibling such as gowin_timing or gowin_resources for depth, nor any preconditions other than the shared 'one build' 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