Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_project_info

Retrieves information about the currently open Vivado project so you can confirm project settings before running synthesis, implementation, simulation, or TCL commands.

Instructions

Get information about the currently open project

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_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, absence of side effects, or any prerequisites for the currently open project. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While concise, it could benefit from additional 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It fails to explain the output structure or semantics, making it incomplete for an AI agent to infer the tool's behavior.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description is the sole source of semantic meaning. It fails to specify what kind of information is returned (e.g., project name, path, settings), leaving ambiguity. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the vagueness reduces it to 2.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'information about the currently open project'. It clearly indicates a read operation and distinguishes from sibling tools that either open/close projects or retrieve specific details like cells or clocks.

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 get_cells, get_clocks, or get_design_hierarchy. The description does not explain the scope of 'information' or how to decide between this and other get_* 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