Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_nets

Search Vivado FPGA design nets by wildcard name pattern to locate signals and limit results.

Instructions

Search for nets in the design

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_nets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results (default: 100)
patternNoWildcard pattern to match net names (default: '*')

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, side effects, performance implications, or whether the search is case-sensitive. This is a significant gap for understanding tool impact.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too minimal; a slightly more informative description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or context like 'nets' meaning in the design. Slight room for improvement.

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 the schema already defines parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., pattern syntax, limit behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for nets in the design' clearly states the action (search) and the resource (nets). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cells, get_clocks, etc., which target different design objects. However, it lacks specificity about the search mechanism (e.g., wildcard support) which the schema provides.

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 is provided. The context of sibling tools implies this is for nets, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to other search tools.

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