Vivado MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_timing_summary

Check FPGA timing closure by retrieving Vivado WNS, TNS, WHS, and THS metrics. Choose summary, setup, hold, or all reports; parsed metrics are returned by default.

Instructions

Get timing summary (WNS, TNS, WHS, THS). Returns parsed metrics only by default. Use generate_full_report for raw output.

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_timing_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report_type`	No	Type: 'summary' (default), 'setup', 'hold', or 'all'
`detail_level`	No	Detail level: 'summary' (default, parsed metrics only), 'standard' (+ truncated raw), 'full' (+ complete raw)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses default behavior (parsed metrics only) but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits such as auth needs, side effects, or return details beyond the default. With no annotations, the description adds some transparency but not full coverage.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose with specific metrics, second provides immediate alternative guidance. Zero wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return format. Mentions 'parsed metrics' but no structure details. Parameter effects beyond default are not elaborated, relying on schema. However, the tool is simple and sibling context is adequate.

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% with both parameters thoroughly described. The description adds marginal value by referencing default behavior but does not provide additional parameter insight beyond what the schema already offers.

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 gets a timing summary, listing specific metrics (WNS, TNS, WHS, THS). It distinguishes from sibling 'generate_full_report' by noting default behavior (parsed metrics only).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly mentions when to use the alternative 'generate_full_report' for raw output. Does not specify context for other siblings like 'get_timing_paths', but given the sibling count, the guidance is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.