Inspect a SystemVerilog module's instance hierarchy from a file, or set reverse to list parent modules that instantiate it. Use it to trace RTL design structure and connectivity.
Module instance hierarchy rooted at the module in file: instance: module (path:line). reverse=true shows the parents that instantiate it instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | SystemVerilog file path, absolute or relative to the workspace root | |
| reverse | No |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the output format (`instance: module (path:line)`) and the reverse traversal behavior, but doesn't state that the operation is read-only, whether it handles SystemVerilog only, or what happens when no instances are found.
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 compact sentences with zero waste. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the optional `reverse` semantics follow immediately.
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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, output shape, and the non-obvious `reverse` parameter. Minor gaps remain around language scope and empty results, but the essential information is present.
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 coverage is 50%: `file` is documented, but `reverse` has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that `reverse=true` shows parents that instantiate the module instead, adding meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific resource (module instance hierarchy) rooted at the module in `file`, which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like `find_references` or `document_symbols`, but the hierarchy-specific framing is distinct enough.
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?
It gives conditional guidance for the `reverse` parameter (parents instead of children), which is useful mode selection. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `find_references` or `document_symbols`, leaving selection mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.