Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vivado MCP

Vivado MCP

by binghin2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_implementation

Execute place-and-route implementation on the current Vivado project to generate post-implementation results, with configurable parallel jobs and timeout for large designs.

Instructions

Run implementation (place and route) on the current 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": "run_implementation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobsNoNumber of parallel jobs (default: 4)
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (default: 3600 = 60 minutes). Increase for large designs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether results are overwritten, required project state, or any other behavioral traits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise with no waste. However, it may be too minimal for a tool that likely has important behavioral nuances. It earns its place but lacks helpful detail.

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 annotations, output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition does not provide adequate context. Missing information includes expected return values, progress indication, and impact on the project state.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'run' and the resource 'implementation (place and route)' on the current project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_synthesis and run_simulation, which are different phases.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring synthesis to be run first. There is no indication of when not to use it.

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