Analyze a SystemVerilog file to detect parse errors, rule violations, and semantic diagnostics, returning file:line:column locations.
Lint one SystemVerilog file: parse errors, lint rules and semantic diagnostics. Output lines are path:line:col: severity: message (1-based).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | SystemVerilog file path, absolute or relative to the workspace root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses diagnostic categories and the exact output line format with 1-based coordinates, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only/non-mutating, describe error behavior for missing files, or mention any lint configuration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second specifies the output format. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lint tool with a fully documented input schema, the description is complete enough: it states the scope, diagnostic categories, and the return line format in lieu of an output schema. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the file parameter and its absolute/relative path semantics are already documented. The description's 'one SystemVerilog file' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('one SystemVerilog file'), and its single-file scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lint_all. An agent can identify the action and target without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one SystemVerilog file' gives clear context that this is for a single-file lint operation, contrasting with lint_all. However, it does not explicitly name lint_all as the alternative for multiple files or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.