Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hw-verify-mcp

hw-verify-mcp

by nickharris808
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_masking_gadgets

List bundled masking gadgets and the JSON netlist format for custom formal verification.

Instructions

List the bundled masking gadgets and the JSON netlist format for your own.

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": "list_masking_gadgets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose return format, side effects, or limitations. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the tautological 'list'.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with 'List'. However, the phrase 'for your own' is ambiguous and could be clearer, slightly reducing structure quality.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, annotations, or output schema. The description states what is listed (masking gadgets and JSON netlist format) but does not describe the return structure or any behavioral details. Adequate but minimal for a list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and no parameter details are missing.

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 the resource 'bundled masking gadgets', and also mentions 'JSON netlist format', giving a specific scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_benchmark_fixtures' by the resource, though not explicitly.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The listing nature implies use when needing the gadget list, but no context or exclusions are given.

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