EDA Tools MCP Server

by kfy123bot

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: reading reports, running a full design flow, simulating, synthesizing, viewing GDSII files, and viewing waveforms. The descriptions specify unique actions and tools (OpenLane, Icarus Verilog, Yosys, KLayout, GTKWave), making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., read_openlane_reports, run_openlane, simulate_verilog) with no deviations. The naming is uniform and predictable across the set, using snake_case throughout.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for an EDA server, covering key stages like simulation, synthesis, viewing, and analysis. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need in the ASIC/FPGA design workflow without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major EDA operations: simulation, synthesis, viewing, and report analysis, with no dead ends. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit CRUD operations for design files (e.g., create/edit Verilog), but agents can work around this using the provided tools for core workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what the simulation does (e.g., runs tests, generates waveforms), potential outputs, error handling, or performance considerations like runtime or resource usage. The mention of 'Icarus Verilog' hints at the simulator but doesn't explain its implications.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the tool name, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a simulation tool. It doesn't explain what the simulation returns (e.g., success/failure, waveforms, logs) or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle errors. More context is needed for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('verilog_code' and 'testbench_code') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Simulate') and target ('Verilog code'), and specifies the tool used ('Icarus Verilog'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'synthesize_verilog' by focusing on simulation rather than synthesis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'view_waveform' which might display simulation results.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing both design and testbench code), nor does it clarify relationships with siblings like 'view_waveform' for analyzing simulation outputs. The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the synthesis tool (Yosys) and target types, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, expected runtime, output format, error handling, or resource requirements. For a synthesis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details (tool and target scope) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity of synthesis (a non-trivial EDA operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., netlist, reports), success/failure conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and significant behavioral implications, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Synthesize') and resource ('Verilog code'), and specifies the tool used ('Yosys') and target scope ('various FPGA targets'). It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_verilog or run_openlane by focusing on synthesis rather than simulation or full flows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools beyond the sibling list provided.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like simulate_verilog (for verification) or run_openlane (for full implementation). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit contextual boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a file in a viewer, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific software (KLayout), what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether it launches a GUI application, or any performance/rate limit considerations.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'opening in KLayout viewer' means operationally, what the user experience will be, whether this blocks execution, or what happens on success/failure. Given the technical nature of GDSII files and KLayout, more context would be helpful.
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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between project_id and gds_file, or provide context about auto-detection behavior.
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 clearly states the action ('Open') and target resource ('GDSII file in KLayout viewer'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_waveform' which might also involve viewing operations in different contexts.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'view_waveform' or other viewing/analysis operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this opens a GUI viewer (implying interactive use), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (opening a waveform viewer likely involves GUI interaction) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after opening (e.g., viewer launch, return values), prerequisites, or error handling, leaving gaps for agent usage.
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 fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'vcd_file' is opened, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Open') and resource ('VCD waveform file in GTKWave viewer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_gds' (which likely opens a different file type), so it misses full sibling distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a simulation result), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'simulate_verilog' (which might generate the VCD file). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation (implied by 'Read') and specifies the return content (reports for PPA metrics, timing, etc.), but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return scope. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return content but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and output structure, which are important for a read tool in a technical context like OpenLane analysis.
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 ('project_id' and 'report_type') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'all reports or specific category', which aligns with the schema's default behavior, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema specifies.
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 clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('OpenLane report files'), specifying the purpose as retrieving reports for LLM analysis. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_openlane' or 'simulate_verilog' by focusing on reading existing reports rather than executing processes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read-like tools.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'Returns all reports or specific category', suggesting it can be used for broad or targeted analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'view_gds' or 'view_waveform', and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the time-consuming nature ('up to 10 minutes'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether it creates files/directories, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or provides progress feedback. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral context (time estimate). No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given this is a complex ASIC design tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it covers purpose and time estimate, it doesn't address what the tool returns (GDSII file? success status?), error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool of this complexity with no structured support, more context would be helpful.
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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
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's purpose with specific verb ('Run') and resource ('complete ASIC design flow using OpenLane'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the full RTL to GDSII process. This differentiates it from tools like synthesize_verilog (partial flow) or view_gds (viewing only).
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?
The description implies usage context through the time estimate ('up to 10 minutes'), suggesting this is for full ASIC implementation rather than partial steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like synthesize_verilog or when not to use it (e.g., for quick simulations). The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp4eda-kfy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kfy123bot/mcp4eda-kfy/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kfy123bot/mcp4eda-kfy)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp4eda-kfy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kfy123bot/mcp4eda-kfy/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kfy123bot/mcp4eda-kfy)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kfy123bot/mcp4eda-kfy'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server