Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_full_report

Generates a complete Vivado report to a file when inline output is truncated, supporting timing, utilization, hierarchy, clocks, power, DRC, and custom options.

Instructions

Generate a full Vivado report to a file. Use when inline reports are truncated or you need the complete output.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "report_type": "<report_type>"
    },
    "name": "generate_full_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNoReport-specific options (e.g., {'hierarchical': true} for utilization)
output_fileNoOptional custom output path. Default: /tmp/vivado_mcp/<type>_<id>.txt
report_typeYesType of report to generate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. Mentions default output path and file generation, but lacks details on file overwrite behavior, permissions, prerequisite session state (e.g., must have run synthesis/implementation).

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No verbose or redundant content.

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 low complexity, description lacks full context: no mention of file overwriting, expected output format, or whether the tool requires a live project. No output schema to compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema's param descriptions; e.g., for 'options' it just says 'report-specific options' without examples.

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 verb 'generate' and resource 'full Vivado report to a file'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_timing_summary' which provide inline rather than file output.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use ('use when inline reports are truncated or you need complete output'), providing clear context and hinting at alternatives.

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