Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
siliconsmith-mcp

siliconsmith-mcp

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

toolchain_info

Checks Docker and the toolchain image, reports every tool version, and diagnoses setup errors before chip-design tasks. Run it first when toolchain failures occur.

Instructions

Check that Docker and the toolchain image work, and report the version of every tool.

Call this first if anything else fails with a toolchain error.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "toolchain_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
detailsNo
summaryYes
artifactsNo
next_hintsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool exercises Docker and the toolchain image (implying dependency on a running Docker daemon) but does not say whether it pulls or starts containers, how slow it may be, or whether it mutates state; the presence of an output schema covers the return values.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states what it does, the second states when to reach for it. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema declaring the reported tool versions, the description covers purpose and invocation timing adequately. It could add whether the check is safe to run repeatedly or requires Docker to already be running, which matters for a health-check tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema semantics are trivially complete and there is nothing the description needs to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check Docker and the toolchain image, and report the version of every tool. That is far more precise than a generic 'get info' and is clearly distinct from siblings like run_tests or synthesize, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger and ordering: call this first if anything else fails with a toolchain error. That is actionable usage guidance, though it does not say when this tool is unnecessary or what to do if the check itself fails.

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