Check the status and details of an asynchronous Vivado job using its job ID or native run name, enabling progress tracking and result verification.
Inspect an asynchronous job by MCP job ID or a native Vivado run name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| run_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| error_code | Yes | ||
| state_changed | Yes | ||
| recommended_actions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and the dual lookup key is disclosed, but the description says nothing about what happens when both job_id and run_name are supplied, whether both may be empty (both have '' defaults), or whether the job must be in a particular state to be inspective.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 13-word sentence with the verb, resource, and both lookup keys front-loaded. There is zero filler and every word contributes meaning; this is appropriately minimal for the tool's small parameter surface.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, an output schema exists to document return values, and the core mechanic is fully described. However, with no annotations and a potentially confusable sibling (diagnose_run), the description should have addressed selection criteria and dual-parameter behavior. It is adequate for a basic call but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map job_id to 'MCP job ID' and run_name to 'native Vivado run name', and the word 'or' conveys that they are alternative selectors, which is real value beyond the bare schema. It stops short of clarifying precedence if both are provided or the meaning of the empty-string defaults, so compensation is partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('an asynchronous job'), and specifies two lookup modalities (by MCP job ID or native Vivado run name), which clearly distinguishes it from inspect_project (project vs run/job). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling diagnose_run, which could plausibly serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It never says when to choose this tool over inspect_project or diagnose_run, nor does it contextualize usage within the async job lifecycle (e.g., 'after starting a job, use this to check its status'). The word 'asynchronous' implies a use case, but the description leaves the selection logic entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.