Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_simulation_objects

List signals, variables, and ports within a specified simulation scope, with optional type filtering, to inspect design objects during Vivado simulation.

Instructions

List simulation objects (signals, variables) in a scope

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_simulation_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoHierarchical scope (e.g., '/tb', '/tb/dut'). Default is root.
filterNoFilter by object type (default: all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, but the description correctly implies a read-only behavior by using 'List'. However, it does not disclose any additional traits like performance, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the core functionality. A minor gap is the lack of return format specification, as no output schema exists. However, the tool is straightforward and the description is sufficient for basic use.

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 documents both parameters well. The description adds the phrase 'in a scope', which aligns with the scope parameter but does not provide new semantic 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 verb 'List', the resource 'simulation objects (signals, variables)', and the context 'in a scope'. This directly differentiates from sibling tools like get_scopes (which lists scopes) and get_nets (which lists nets).

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 get_scopes, get_nets, get_ports, or get_clocks. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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