Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fpgaZeroMCP

fpgaZeroMCP

by lcapossio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_ip_core

Retrieve the full manifest and HDL source files for a named FPGA IP core by providing the core name.

Instructions

Fetch the full manifest and HDL source files for a named IP core.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_ip_core"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCore name, e.g. 'uart_tx' or 'fifo'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for a fetch 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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words, every part adds value.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat limited. It explains what the tool does but does not specify what is returned (e.g., raw files, metadata). For a simple fetch, it is minimally adequate but could provide more context about expected output.

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?

The input schema provides a complete description for the only parameter 'name' (e.g., core name with examples). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('full manifest and HDL source files') and the input ('named IP core'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_ip_cores' and 'generate_ip'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'search_github_cores' or 'import_fusesoc_core'. The description does not mention prerequisites or when it is appropriate to use.

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