A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI agents to design hardware by writing C-like HDL and compiling it to Verilog, with real toolchain verification including synthesis checks.
10
1
MIT
hw-verify-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to hw-verify-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables LLMs to interact with hardware designs (Verilog/SystemVerilog), formal verification tools, waveform logs, protocol specifications, and bug databases through 34 structured tools.-
- AlicenseCqualityFmaintenanceEnables RTL simulation and hardware verification with Verilator through automatic testbench generation, natural language queries about simulations, waveform analysis, and protocol-aware testing for Verilog/SystemVerilog designs.44MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to verify code patches locally with sub-50ms neuro-symbolic analysis, detecting structural issues like dependency cycles and interface drift without consuming output tokens.1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides LLMs and AI agents safe, structured, read-only access to verification artifacts for deterministic triage and root-cause analysis. Supports UVM, cocotb, and SystemVerilog verification ecosystems.22 PyPI4Apache 2.0
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to perform Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tasks including Verilog synthesis, simulation, ASIC design flows, and waveform analysis through a unified interface.6-
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Scored across 12 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., list vs. get, check vs. replay), but check_constant_time and find_leak both analyze timing leaks, with check_constant_time already naming leaking secrets, making their boundaries slightly blurred. Descriptions mitigate confusion, but the overlap is present.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 12 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (check_*, list_*, get_*, score_*, run_*, replay_*, prove_*). No mixed conventions or camelCase appear, making the naming highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools spanning constant-time verification, benchmark handling, masking certification, and patch completeness, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct function, and none feel redundant or excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main workflows: checking constant-time, localizing leaks, running benchmarks, scoring submissions, certifying masking, and validating patches. A notable gap is prove_confidential, which is explicitly unavailable in open-source, leaving that functionality as a placeholder rather than a usable tool. Aside from this, the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues