fpgaZeroMCP

by lcapossio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

litex_build

Build a LiteX board target with --build, providing logs and output directory.

Instructions

Run LiteX board target with --build. Returns logs and output directory.

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": {
      "board": "<board>"
    },
    "name": "litex_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`board`	Yes	LiteX board target
`args`	No	Extra LiteX CLI args
`output_dir`	No	Optional output directory
`timeout`	No	Timeout in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it runs a build and returns logs and an output directory, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., file creation, duration), required permissions, or error handling. This is insufficient for a build tool.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action. However, it may be overly minimal; slightly more detail could enhance clarity without losing conciseness.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return format, timeout behavior, or effect of optional args. The tool's behavior is only partially described.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Run) and resource (LiteX board target) with the specific flag --build. It also mentions outputs (logs and output directory). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like litex_flow or start_build, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 like litex_flow or start_build. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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