Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fpgaZeroMCP

fpgaZeroMCP

by lcapossio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

litex_flow

Execute a LiteX build for a specified board, accepting extra CLI arguments and a configurable timeout.

Instructions

Run a generic LiteX board target with caller-provided args.

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_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardYesLiteX board target
argsNoExtra LiteX CLI args
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not mention if the tool is blocking, what side effects occur (e.g., writing to disk), permission requirements, or how output is handled. Minimal transparency beyond purpose.

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 sentence, no redundancy. Every word adds meaning. Efficient for a generic tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 24 siblings and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple runner but could mention typical use case (e.g., for prototyping or custom builds). Nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'caller-provided args' but does not explain how args interact with board target or provide examples. No extra semantic value beyond schema.

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 it runs a generic LiteX board target with caller-provided args. The verb 'Run' and resource 'LiteX board target' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like litex_build and litex_soc by being generic.

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?

Description implies usage for running arbitrary board targets with extra args, but does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like litex_build or simulate. No explicit alternative or exclusion guidance.

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