fpgaZeroMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_status

Track background build progress by retrieving status, elapsed time, and recent log lines. Identify success or failure quickly.

Instructions

Check the progress of a background build. Returns status (running/success/failed), elapsed time, and recent log output.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "build_id": "<build_id>"
    },
    "name": "build_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`build_id`	Yes	Build ID returned by start_build
`tail_lines`	No	Number of log lines to return from the end
`parse`	No	Parse log for build phase/utilization/timing (set false for fast polling)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (status, time, logs) but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or safety. Adequate for a read operation but lacks depth.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and result. No wasted words.

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?

Without output schema, description partially covers return values. Missing details on error responses or pagination. Adequate for a simple status check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds no additional information about parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check the progress' and resource 'background build', with specific return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like start_build and cancel_build.

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?

Implied usage after start_build, but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives like list_builds. Missing guidance on prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.