Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_design_hierarchy

Retrieve modules and instances from an open Vivado project, with optional depth limits and wildcard instance filters for focused hierarchy inspection.

Instructions

Get the design hierarchy (modules and instances)

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": "get_design_hierarchy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNoMaximum hierarchy depth to return (default: 3)
instance_patternNoWildcard pattern to filter instances (e.g., '*cpu*', 'core/alu/*')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states the purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or performance implications (e.g., depth limits).

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?

A single sentence that is concise and to the point, with no redundant words.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's complexity, the description does not explain what the returned hierarchy looks like (e.g., tree structure, top-level module). It is incomplete for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (max_depth and instance_pattern) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning 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 tool retrieves design hierarchy (modules and instances), using specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_cells, get_scopes, etc.

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 get_scopes or get_cells. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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