vivado-mcp

run_implementation

Launch Vivado implementation (place and route), waiting for completion by default or returning a job ID for async progress checks.

Instructions

启动实现（布局布线）；默认等待完成，也可异步提交。

不调用 Tcl wait_on_run(会阻塞 Vivado event loop,GUI 模式冻住界面); wait=True 时 Python 每 2 秒查一次 STATUS/PROGRESS；wait=False 时立即返回 job_id，随后用 get_run_progress 查询。

Args: run_name: 实现 run 名称，默认 "impl_1"。 jobs: 并行任务数，默认 4。 timeout_minutes: 超时分钟数，默认 60。 session_id: 目标会话 ID。 wait: True 等待完成并诊断；False 启动后立即返回 job_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": "run_implementation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`jobs`	No
`wait`	No
`run_name`	No	impl_1
`session_id`	No	default
`timeout_minutes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.25Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it avoids blocking Tcl wait_on_run due to GUI freeze, polls STATUS/PROGRESS every 2 seconds when waiting, and returns a job_id immediately when wait=False. Missing details include return value for wait=True, error handling, and preconditions.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a focused explanation of wait behavior and rationale, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so missing return descriptions are not penalized. However, preconditions (e.g., synthesis must be completed first) and postconditions (what 'diagnose' entails) are not addressed. The timeout behavior is only mentioned as a parameter, not what occurs on timeout.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section (run_name, jobs, timeout_minutes, session_id, wait) with their defaults and meaning. It does not provide constraints or examples, but the explanations are clear.

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 '启动实现（布局布线）' (start implementation/place-and-route), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_synthesis and generate_bitstream by naming the implementation 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?

It explains when to use wait=True vs wait=False and directs the user to query with get_run_progress after async submission. However, it does not explicitly state that synthesis should be run first or when not to use this tool.

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