Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fpgaZeroMCP

fpgaZeroMCP

by lcapossio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_github_cores

Search GitHub for open-source FPGA IP cores. Filter by HDL language and retrieve repo names, star counts, descriptions, and topics.

Instructions

Search GitHub for open-source FPGA IP cores (MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc). Returns repo names, star counts, descriptions and topics. Use import_github_core to download a result into the local registry.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_github_cores"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch terms, e.g. 'uart verilog' or 'riscv softcore'
languageNoFilter by HDL language (optional)
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only search that returns repo details. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first explains purpose and output, second directs to sibling. Front-loaded and no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the search scope, returned data, and a follow-up action. No gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it searches for FPGA IP cores on GitHub, specifies license types, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from import_github_core by describing the next step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is clear: search for cores. It mentions import_github_core as the alternative for downloading. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or other alternatives among many siblings.

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