Vivado MCP

by Shanqianlvshui

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is minor overlap between vivado_run_tcl and vivado_source_tcl, which could cause confusion. Overall, agents can distinguish the tools well.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with 'vivado_' prefix and verb_noun structure, making predictions easy.
Tool Count5/5
21 tools are well-scoped for a Vivado development server, covering project management, synthesis, implementation, bitstream generation, session management, and reporting without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the standard FPGA design flow from project creation to bitstream generation, and includes session and TCL management. Missing simulation-related tools, but that may be out of scope.
Average 2.7/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 41 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'suggests' operations, without mentioning side effects, read-only status, or any impact on state. The behavioral traits remain opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and important details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary explanatory content, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a context-aware suggestion tool with 4 optional parameters and a diverse set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how suggestions are generated, what output to expect (though output schema exists), or how to use the context parameters effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. The four optional parameters (goal, last_error, session_ref, project_ref) have self-explanatory titles but no further semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Suggest next MCP operations from current context' is vague. It identifies the tool as a suggestion engine but does not specify what kind of operations or how context is used. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings like vivado_help or vivado_list_skills.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The agent has no guidance on appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'in the managed session', which is vague. It doesn't mention side effects, whether it requires an active session, default behaviors (e.g., handling existing projects), or the meaning of the 'force' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (12 words), but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing essential details; a longer description with key parameter clarifications would be more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'Project Mode' means, what the output contains, or any prerequisites. The output schema is mentioned in signals but not referenced in the description to aid understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining key parameters. However, it adds no information beyond the parameter names. The parameters like 'part', 'board_part', 'force' are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'Vivado Project Mode project', with context 'in the managed session'. This distinguishes it from siblings like vivado_open_project (opens existing) and vivado_start_session (starts session). However, it lacks specificity about what 'Project Mode' entails compared to other modes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vivado_open_project, vivado_start_session, or vivado_source_tcl. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It states the action but omits side effects (e.g., file writes), resource usage (e.g., time, disk), or whether it modifies the project. The timeout parameter hints at long duration but this is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words) but at the expense of essential information. It is not well-structured for usability; a slightly longer description with key details would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or success conditions. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotation support, the description lacks critical context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters (session_ref, run_name, jobs, timeout_seconds). The agent must infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient.
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?
The description 'Run implementation through write_bitstream' clearly specifies the tool performs implementation and bitstream generation, distinguishing it from siblings like vivado_run_implementation which only runs implementation. However, it could be more explicit about the composite nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vivado_run_implementation or prerequisites. An agent has no context on whether synthesis must precede this step or what scenarios avoid using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. The single sentence only states the basic function, leaving behavioral traits unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise but lacks structure to convey essential information such as parameter details or output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it fails to provide sufficient context about 'artifacts', the session requirement, or how listing works. The description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the 'session_ref' parameter beyond its type and requirement. The description fails to add any value over the schema, leaving the parameter meaning ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists files (artifacts) in a managed session directory. It distinguishes from siblings like vivado_list_sessions and vivado_read_artifact by specifying 'artifacts' rather than sessions or reading. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes an artifact (e.g., file types, scope).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must exist) or when not to use it. The context must be inferred from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return structured information'), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or dependencies like needing an open project. The timeout parameter hints at potential duration, but no explicit behavior is described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but vague. It lists components but lacks detail. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the output format or required project state.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, explanation of return values is not needed. However, the description misses key context: it does not state that the tool requires an active session or project, nor does it explain what 'structured information' entails. This inadequacy for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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. However, it does not explain the parameters: session_ref (required, likely a session identifier) and timeout_seconds (default 60). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, leaving their purpose unclear.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns structured information about the Vivado project, listing specific aspects (files, runs, IP, block designs). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like vivado_report or vivado_list_artifacts, limiting distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_report or vivado_list_artifacts. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies session state, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-informative for a tool with 4 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the session concept, the role of session_ref, the report_type options, or the output format, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and enum definitions.
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?
The description states a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Vivado report' within the context of a 'managed session'. It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool explicitly generates a report, but it could be more specific about the report types supported.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a session or specific project state, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like vivado_run_tcl.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'stop'. Does not disclose effects of force parameter, timeout behavior, or consequences like unsaved data loss. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is very concise, but it lacks necessary substance. It earns its place by being short, but not by being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), return values, or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no information about parameters. Does not explain session_ref (how to obtain), force (what forcing does), or timeout_seconds (how it affects stopping).
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?
Description clearly states the action (stop) and resource (managed Vivado session). It is unambiguous but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like vivado_session_state or vivado_start_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vivado_session_state to check state, vivado_start_session to start). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'wait' (implying blocking) but fails to describe timeout behavior, resource usage, potential side effects, or that synthesis must precede implementation. The description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness. It does not efficiently convey information beyond the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It omits prerequisites (e.g., prior synthesis), parameter roles, behavioral implications, and output format, making it inadequate for safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions) and the tool description adds no explanation of any of the four parameters (session_ref, run_name, jobs, timeout_seconds). The agent cannot understand parameter meanings or defaults from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Launch and wait for a Vivado implementation run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vivado_run_synthesis and vivado_generate_bitstream.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_run_synthesis or vivado_generate_bitstream. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'concise help' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., synchronous, cached, source of information). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in a borderline score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the description should at least note that an output schema exists or mention the nature of the help (e.g., text, list). The omission of such details makes the tool incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter description in the schema is just the title. The tool description adds no meaning or examples for the 'topic' parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or format.
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?
The description states it returns concise help for a Vivado MCP topic, using a specific verb and resource. While clear, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vivado_get_skill which also provide help-like information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_get_skill or vivado_suggest_next_steps. There is no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions a profile requirement but does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or side effects. The expect_destructive parameter hints at destructiveness but is not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. It front-loads the main action. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description does not provide enough context. It omits return format, timeout behavior, and the meaning of expect_destructive. The output schema exists but is not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for all 4 parameters. However, the description provides no parameter-level detail. It does not explain session_ref, tcl, timeout_seconds, or expect_destructive.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Run raw Tcl in a managed session.' It also specifies a profile requirement. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vivado_source_tcl, which may have similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The profile requirement is mentioned but does not serve as a usage guideline. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are cited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like whether files are merged or overwritten, permission requirements, or what happens on error. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations). A slightly longer description with structured details would be more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, 5 parameters, and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects on the project. The description provides only the bare minimum of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 only mentions 'RTL/source and constraint files', which loosely maps to the sources and constraints parameters, but offers no detail on session_ref (required), top, or timeout_seconds. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond the parameter titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource type ('RTL/source and constraint files'), and the target ('current Vivado project'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_create_project and vivado_open_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vivado_run_tcl for custom operations), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., an existing active session), and no exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details. It only states the return type but does not mention potential errors, idempotency, or required state (e.g., valid skill_id).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure such as examples or additional context. It is not overly verbose, but brevity compromises completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal if the schema were self-explanatory. However, schema coverage is 0% and no annotations exist, so the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'skill_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what a skill_id is, how to obtain it, or its format, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('one built-in Vivado MCP skill document'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'vivado_list_skills' which would list all skills.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vivado_list_skills). No prerequisites or conditions for invocation are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, idempotent, or any safety characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief, omitting important details like parameter behavior, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (reducing need for return value explanation), the description lacks context about the query parameter and any behavioral notes. For a simple list tool, it is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'query' (optional string or null) with no description. The tool description does not explain the purpose or effect of this parameter, leaving its semantics entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists built-in Vivado MCP skills, using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like vivado_get_skill (retrieves one skill) and vivado_list_artifacts, this distinction is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vivado_get_skill. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'launch and wait', omitting important behavioral details such as failure modes, side effects, locking, or timeout behavior. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise but at the expense of missing critical information. It could be slightly longer to include parameter roles or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It ignores the existence of an output schema and fails to explain parameter semantics or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema provides default values and types but no further context. Parameters like 'jobs' and 'timeout_seconds' are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('launch and wait') and the resource ('Vivado synthesis run'), which is a well-defined concept in the Vivado context. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_run_implementation and vivado_generate_bitstream.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open project) or situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Open an existing Vivado project', omitting any side effects, resource locking, or session implications. The agent gets no sense of whether this is a read-only operation or if it alters state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 10 words is very concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly under-informative. Still, it is front-loaded and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's context (3 parameters, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes, leaving the agent with minimal guidance for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 3 parameters (session_ref, project_path, timeout_seconds). The agent learns nothing about their purpose, format, or constraints beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('existing Vivado project'), distinguishing it from siblings like vivado_create_project. The phrase 'in the managed session' adds specific context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_create_project or vivado_add_sources. The description does not mention preconditions or scenarios where opening a project is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning state but does not disclose whether the operation is safe, destructive, or requires special permissions. The term 'bridge/process state' is vague and does not clarify behavior beyond a simple read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is simple and the description is minimal. For an agent to select and invoke it correctly, more context is needed about what 'state' values are possible, how they map to the session lifecycle, and how to interpret the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'session_ref'. The description does not explain what a session ref is, how to obtain it, or its format. The schema provides only the title and type, so the agent lacks essential context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'return', the resource 'bridge/process state', and the context 'managed Vivado session'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_list_sessions which list sessions, while this retrieves state for a specific session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_list_sessions or vivado_start_session. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states 'Find Vivado and return its version' without disclosing what happens if Vivado is not found, how it locates the installation, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices detail for brevity. It could be longer to cover essential information without being verbose. Score reflects adequate conciseness but insufficient completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema, the description could be shorter, but it still fails to mention what the output contains (e.g., version string), error cases, or whether the tool searches common paths. It is incomplete for a simple check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the 'vivado_path' parameter at all, beyond what the schema provides (type and default). An agent has no guidance on what value to provide or its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'Vivado' and its version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vivado_create_project or vivado_run_synthesis, which are about project creation or running tasks. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, its name and simple purpose imply it's for checking if Vivado is installed and retrieving its version. It lacks instructions on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description implies read-only behavior but lacks additional context such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs; no annotations to compensate, so transparency is minimal.
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?
Single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with action, no redundant information; highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite output schema existence, description omits essential context such as how to obtain artifact_id or that session_ref must be from a previously started session; agent may lack full usage picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no explanation of parameters like session_ref, artifact_id, or max_chars; agent must rely on parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read a text artifact from a managed session', using specific verb and resource; contrasts with siblings like vivado_list_artifacts, establishing distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives; no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need for valid session_ref) or relationship to list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions starting a session and optionally opening GUI, but does not disclose what 'managed' entails, effects on existing sessions, or any safety considerations (e.g., destructive actions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices detail for brevity. It could include more structured information without becoming verbose. Not excessively long, but insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It does not cover setup requirements, return value, or how it fits into the overall workflow with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at the open_gui parameter. It does not explain vivado_path, workspace_dir, capability_profile (e.g., meaning of 'safe' vs 'unrestricted'), or startup_timeout_seconds. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and resource 'managed Vivado Tcl session', and mentions the optional GUI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_run_tcl or vivado_stop_session, which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to others, such as prerequisites (e.g., should it be used before running Tcl commands) or scenarios to avoid. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions a security requirement but fails to disclose side effects, error behavior, return values, or destructiveness. The 'expect_destructive' parameter hints at potential issues, but the description does not address them.
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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 5 parameters, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what sourcing does, how timeout or destructive behavior are handled, or what output is returned. Incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it does not describe any of the 5 parameters (session_ref, script_path, tclargs, timeout_seconds, expect_destructive). Only 'source a Tcl file' loosely maps to script_path, but no semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'source' and the resource 'Tcl file in a managed session'. It distinguishes from sibling 'vivado_run_tcl' by specifying file sourcing rather than inline commands. The requirement 'trusted-local or unrestricted profile' adds context.
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?
Specifies a prerequisite (trusted-local or unrestricted profile) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'vivado_run_tcl'. No when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action (list) and resource, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation.
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?
Single sentence of 5 words, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on what constitutes 'active managed' sessions or how the output is structured beyond the schema.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by naming the resource, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'active managed Vivado sessions', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like vivado_start_session, vivado_stop_session, and vivado_session_state.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage context is implied. Could benefit from mentioning when not to use or suggesting alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Vivado_CLI MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shanqianlvshui/Vivado_CLI/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shanqianlvshui/Vivado_CLI)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Vivado_CLI MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shanqianlvshui/Vivado_CLI/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shanqianlvshui/Vivado_CLI)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Shanqianlvshui/Vivado_CLI'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server