Run design rule checks on the saved interface to identify unplaced pins, I/O standard vs bank voltage mismatches, PLL frequency violations, and clock routing errors.
Run the Interface Designer design check (DRC) on the saved design: unplaced pins, I/O standard vs bank voltage mismatches, PLL frequency ranges, clock routing rules, and so on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the types of design rule violations checked, but it does not explain what happens after the check, whether it launches a job, or how results are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource before giving concrete examples. Every element earns its place, and the list of check categories remains concise despite its detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is reasonably complete, but it lacks information about the return value or how the DRC results are surfaced. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to infer whether the tool returns a pass/fail status, a report, or writes results to a list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'project' parameter, and the tool description does not mention or define it. While 'project' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the schema gap by explaining its format, purpose, or relationship to the saved design.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as running an Interface Designer design check (DRC) on the saved design, with a specific verb and resource. It also lists concrete examples of what is checked, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_interface_design or edit_interface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the check should be run on the saved design, providing a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_flow, get_interface_design, or calc_pll. There is no mention of exclusions 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.