vivado-mcp

get_io_report

Retrieve structured IO pin reports in JSON, detailing pin assignments, directions, IO standards, banks, and GT/GPIO types with summary statistics.

Instructions

获取结构化 IO 引脚报告（JSON）。

执行 report_io 并解析为结构化数据，包含：

每个端口的引脚、站点、方向、IO 标准、Bank
GT / GPIO 类型自动判定
汇总统计（总数、GT 数、GPIO 数、未分配数）

Args: session_id: 目标会话 ID。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_io_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	No		default

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.25Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

It discloses that the tool executes report_io and parses the result, and it describes the output structure. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether an active session is required, or how errors are handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief opening line, bullet points for output contents, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The output schema exists, so return value structure is defined externally. The description adds the execution behavior (runs report_io) and highlights the key report contents. It lacks explicit session prerequisite information, but for a single-parameter report tool, it is largely sufficient.

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 only provides the type and default for session_id; the description adds the semantic meaning '目标会话 ID' (target session ID). This compensates for the zero schema description coverage and gives the agent enough information to supply a valid session.

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 opens with '获取结构化 IO 引脚报告（JSON）', clearly identifying the action (get) and resource (IO pin report) plus the JSON format. The bullet points listing pin, site, direction, IO standard, and Bank further distinguish it from sibling report tools like get_timing_report or get_utilization_report.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by detailing exactly what data it returns (per-port pin info and summary statistics). An agent can infer to use this tool when IO pin details are needed, but there is no explicit alternative comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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