Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Questa MCP

Questa MCP

by chinn-choppa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

server_info

Reports available prototype capabilities and server state without launching an EDA simulator, so MCP clients can inspect Questa/ModelSim setup before running simulations.

Instructions

Сообщить о возможностях прототипа без запуска EDA.

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": "server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that EDA is not launched, implying a non-invasive info operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or other operational constraints.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the stated purpose.

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 zero-parameter info tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The output schema can carry return details, though the description remains slightly vague about what 'capabilities' includes and how it relates to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal. The description correctly adds no parameter information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: report the prototype's capabilities. The phrase 'without launching EDA' adds scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tool_status.

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?

It implies usage when the agent needs prototype capabilities without starting EDA, which is a useful condition. However, it names no alternatives, no exclusions, and no explicit comparison with tool_status or parse_diagnostics.

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