Launch Vivado synthesis asynchronously and get a job ID for non-blocking tracking. Idempotent execution ensures safe reruns.
Launch synthesis idempotently and return a job ID instead of blocking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | 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?
Despite having no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it is idempotent (safe to call repeatedly) and non-blocking (returns a job ID rather than waiting). This goes beyond the tool name, but it does not cover what happens on repeated calls, whether a new job is created, or how the job is monitored.
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?
One concise sentence with no filler; the main purpose and key behavior are front-loaded ('Launch synthesis...'). It packs useful modifiers without extra wording.
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 a launch operation with an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits any mention of the 'jobs' parameter and gives no indication of how to monitor the created job, despite siblings like inspect_run existing; the description is adequate for a default call but incomplete for customization.
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?
The single parameter 'jobs' is completely undocumented in the schema and the description never mentions it (schema coverage 0%). With no parameter semantics provided, an agent cannot tell whether 'jobs' means parallel count, retry count, or something else; this is a significant gap.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Launch'), names the resource ('synthesis'), and adds two behavioral qualifiers ('idempotently', 'return a job ID instead of blocking') that distinguish it from sibling tools like run_implementation and generate_bitstream. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and roughly how it behaves.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternative tools for blocking runs; the 'instead of blocking' hint is behavioral, not usage guidance. An agent must infer when synthesis is the right step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.