Launch a headless Vivado Tcl session and optionally load an existing project to begin automated FPGA build workflows.
Start one headless Vivado Tcl session and optionally open an existing .xpr project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vivado_path | No | ||
| project_path | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the session is headless and that opening a project is optional, but it omits lifecycle details such as whether the session persists until stop_vivado, whether startup blocks, or what happens if the project path is invalid.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, the headless mode, the Tcl session nature, and the optional project behavior efficiently.
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 definition is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, and the output schema covers return values. However, with no annotations, it leaves lifecycle context thin: an agent must infer from sibling names that the session should later be stopped and that run_tcl operates within it.
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 supply parameter meaning. It directly defines project_path as an existing .xpr project and strongly implies vivado_path is the Vivado executable path; the word 'optionally' also clarifies that both parameters are not required.
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 states the specific action ('Start'), the resource ('one headless Vivado Tcl session'), and the optional project file ('an existing .xpr project'). This clearly distinguishes start_vivado from siblings like run_tcl, stop_vivado, and inspect_project.
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?
The description implies that starting a session is a prerequisite for later Tcl commands, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus stop_vivado, run_tcl, or check_build_readiness. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.