MCP for Vivado

by lzw12123

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., workflow CRUD, toolchain management, design intents), but 'cancel_workflow' and 'reject_workflow' could be ambiguous—both involve stopping a workflow but with different semantics. Descriptions are brief but generally clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_workflow, list_workflows). Minor inconsistency: 'design_block_design' is redundant (block design appears twice), and 'run_simulation' uses a different verb style than 'design_*' intents.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools is well-scoped for a Vivado MCP server covering workflow lifecycle, design intents, toolchain registration, and public methods. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers CRUD for workflows, toolchain registration, and design intents. Minor gaps: lacks update/delete for registered toolchains (only remove), and no tool for listing or managing IP/block designs after creation. Core workflows are complete.
Average 2.5/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or return value, despite having an output schema. The description is completely opaque about what happens when this tool is called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too short to be useful, indicating under-specification rather than efficient communication. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of workflow confirmation (with multiple sibling tools and an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain how this tool fits into the workflow lifecycle, what triggers it, or what the output represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the single parameter 'params', which is a free-form object or null. The description does not clarify what properties this object should contain, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Confirm a workflow.' is extremely terse and does not specify what confirming a workflow entails, such as its effect on workflow state, what inputs it expects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'submit_workflow_input' or 'reject_workflow'. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination, making it vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 versus alternatives like 'submit_workflow_input' or 'reject_workflow'. No context is provided about prerequisites or conditions under which confirmation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the implied read operation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it fails to mention pagination, filtering, or output structure. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. While no information is wasted, the description fails to convey essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and 1 parameter with 0% coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output, parameter usage, or how this tool fits among 17 sibling tools. A complete description would include listing scope, filtering options, and relationship to get_workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'params' with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what this parameter does, its valid values, or its effect on the output. The parameter is a generic object allowing any properties, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List workflows' is a minimal statement that repeats the tool name without specifying scope, context, or differentiating features. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_workflow or list_public_methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what parameters affect results, or how it compares to alternatives such as get_workflow or search-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Create', implying a write operation, but no annotations exist to confirm behavior. It fails to disclose important traits such as whether the tool is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, or if it triggers side effects.
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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the vague schema (one undocumented generic param) and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. Even with an output schema, the input is underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'params' is a loosely typed anyOf (object or null) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no semantics about what keys or values are expected, making it unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a workflow record' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'workflow record' means, what type of workflow, or how this differs from siblings like submit_workflow_input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 such as submit_workflow_input, confirm_workflow, or get_workflow. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one phrase), but it is too brief to be useful. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (ambiguous workflow intent), lack of parameter documentation, and missing output schema explanation, the description is severely incomplete. The output schema exists but is not used to aid understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter 'params' with type object, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what properties the 'params' object should contain, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run a simulation workflow intent' is vague and does not specify what a 'simulation workflow intent' is, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'submit_workflow_input'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 such as 'create_workflow' or 'submit_workflow_input'. The description lacks context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. It only states it 'designs' an intent, which is insufficient.
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?
Extremely concise, but at the cost of completeness. While no words are wasted, the description is too brief to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests design functionality and there is an output schema, the description should explain what an 'IP workflow intent' is and what the tool returns. It fails to provide any context, making the tool nearly unusable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage and the only parameter 'params' is a generic object. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, providing no information about what properties the object should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Design an IP workflow intent' is vague, lacking a specific verb and resource. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'design_block_design' or 'create_workflow', making it unclear what 'intent' means.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'design_block_design' or 'create_workflow'. The description implies a design action but offers no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is irreversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., deleting intermediate data). The description is too brief to convey safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words) and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary detail. It could be improved by adding context without excessive length.
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 (1 parameter, no annotations, sibling tools with similar actions), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what distinguishes cancel from reject_workflow, nor does it clarify the parameter's purpose or the output schema's return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter ('params') with an anyOf type allowing object or null. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what 'params' should contain (e.g., workflow ID, reason) or its format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel a workflow' clearly states the action and resource (cancel + workflow). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reject_workflow' or 'confirm_workflow', which could have overlapping semantics. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity about what 'cancel' entails compared to 'reject'.
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 cancel vs reject_workflow, or any prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be in a cancellable state). The description does not mention context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements. The term 'design' implies creation or modification but is not explicit.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks essential information, but for what it contains, it is efficiently structured.
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 presence of an output schema (though not described here), the tool's complexity is moderate with one open parameter. The description is insufficiently complete; it does not explain return values, workflow behavior, or how the 'params' object should be structured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The single parameter 'params' is an open object with no constraints or examples in the description, offering no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Design a block design workflow intent' indicates a design action related to block design workflows, but the verb 'design' is vague and the term 'block design workflow intent' is unclear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'design_ip' but lacks specificity about what the tool produces or modifies.
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 such as 'design_ip' or 'create_workflow'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (likely), if it requires authentication, or what happens if the workflow doesn't exist. It doesn't explain the output behavior beyond 'snapshot', leaving agents with no insight into side effects or access requirements.
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 very short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it lacks substance. While concise, it does not earn its place because it provides minimal information. It could be expanded with key details 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 tool has an output schema (unseen) but no parameter descriptions and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how to interpret the snapshot, or what scenarios require this tool. With siblings like 'get_workflow_events' and 'list_workflows', more context is needed for proper selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'params' with a generic object type (additionalProperties: true) and no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about the parameter's meaning, structure, or required fields. The description fails to clarify how to identify the workflow (e.g., by ID).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves a workflow snapshot, which is moderately clear. However, it doesn't specify what 'snapshot' means exactly (e.g., status, metadata, full definition). The verb 'Get' is standard for retrieval, but the resource 'workflow snapshot' could be more precise. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_workflow_events', it's distinct but not fully differentiated.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_workflow_events' or 'list_workflows'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow ID needed) or context. There's no when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, if it triggers notifications, or if it requires special permissions. The agent is left guessing about side effects.
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 sentence, concise and to the point. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections, which would be acceptable given the brevity. No unnecessary words, but more detail would be beneficial.
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?
The tool has one parameter with no documentation, no annotations, and a sibling 'cancel_workflow' that likely overlaps in function. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly, especially given the presence of similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'params' with type 'anyOf' (object or null) and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter is for or how to use it. The agent cannot infer the required structure or meaning from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('reject') and the resource ('workflow'), which is clear. However, it does not specify what 'reject' entails (e.g., cancelling, marking as invalid) or how it differs from 'cancel_workflow', which is a sibling. The description is minimally clear but lacks specificity.
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 versus alternatives like 'cancel_workflow'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, conditions, or best practices. The agent has no information to decide when rejection is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether events are filtered, paginated, or if there are side effects. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but no explicit safety or destructive hints.
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?
Extremely concise (3 words). No wasted sentences, but the brevity may omit essential details. Still, it's front-loaded and efficient.
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 complex domain (workflow events) and presence of an output schema, the description should explain what events are, filtering criteria, or link to documentation. It is too minimal to be 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 has 1 parameter (params) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what the 'params' object contains. Baseline 3 for zero-required-params, but lack of any parameter guidance reduces score from potential 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get public workflow events', which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (public workflow events). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow' (single workflow) and 'list_workflows' (list all workflows) by specifying 'events' and 'public' scope.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_workflow, list_workflows). The context of 'public' events is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other tools that might handle private or filtered events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the submission is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The lack of any behavioral context beyond 'submit' leaves the agent guessing about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 words), which is concise but too brief to be helpful. It front-loads the verb and resource but omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description should still explain what 'user input' means and how it relates to workflows. It does not mention the return value or any side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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 only one parameter ('params') with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'params' contains (e.g., JSON object of workflow inputs). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 'Submit workflow user input' clearly indicates the tool's action (submit) and resource (workflow user input). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_workflow or confirm_workflow by focusing on submitting input rather than cancelling or confirming.
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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like confirm_workflow or create_workflow. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an active workflow, nor does it mention any conditions under which input submission is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'persists' the path, implying a mutation effect. However, it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing paths, required permissions, or error handling.
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 sentence of reasonable length. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be more concise by removing redundancy ('path' appears twice).
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?
Given the tool has one parameter with no schema description and no output schema details, the description provides basic context but lacks completeness. It does not specify the return value or error conditions, which are critical for a registration action.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the single 'params' parameter beyond 'Register another Vivado install path or vivado.bat path'. Without parameter details, the agent must guess the expected structure. A baseline of 4 for 0 params is not applicable here because there is one param; the description should clarify its format.
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 tool registers a Vivado install path or vivado.bat path and persists it. The verb 'Register' and resource 'Vivado install path or vivado.bat path' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_registered_toolchain' or 'list_registered_toolchains'.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_registered_toolchains' or 'remove_registered_toolchain'. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where registration is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it lists 'released v2 public' methods, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, filtering, or whether it requires authentication. A neutral score due to no contradictions.
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 sentence with 7 words, conveying the core purpose concisely. It is front-loaded with the action 'List'. Could be slightly more specific about the resource.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'public' means or if authentication is needed. Adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, but baseline is 4 for tools with zero parameters. No additional semantics needed.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'released v2 public FPGA MCP methods', and specifies the scope as 'released v2 public'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_workflows or list_registered_toolchains. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a destructive action ('Remove') but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it cascades to workflows using it) or required permissions. Adequate but could be more transparent.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (one optional param, no required fields), the description is mostly adequate but could mention that the toolchain must have been previously registered. An output schema exists but return value is not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'params' (an object) should identify the toolchain to remove. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description implies the necessary information. However, no explicit details on the expected structure.
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 states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'previously registered Vivado toolchain option', with a clear scope of 'from stdio workflows'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_toolchain_path' and 'list_registered_toolchains'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., toolchain must be registered first) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose whether any side effects occur, authorization requirements, or output details. The description adds some clarity but is minimal.
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 sentence that is clear and concise, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose effectively.
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?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema (though its contents are not detailed here), the description is somewhat complete. However, it could mention that it returns a list of toolchain identifiers or names, and that it is safe to call at any time. The lack of any behavioral notes or usage guidance reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage by default). The description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly implies no inputs needed, which is sufficient.
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 verb ('list') and resource ('registered Vivado toolchains'), and specifies the context ('available to stdio workflows'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like register_toolchain_path and remove_registered_toolchain, which have different verbs and purposes.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: to view available toolchains before using them in workflows. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like list_public_methods or other list tools. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-for-vivado MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzw12123/mcp-for-vivado/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzw12123/mcp-for-vivado)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-for-vivado MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzw12123/mcp-for-vivado/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzw12123/mcp-for-vivado)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lzw12123/mcp-for-vivado'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server