Retrieve a project's configuration, including target device, top module, design files, and synthesis or routing options, to verify settings before compilation.
Read a project's settings: device, top module, design/constraint/interface files and synthesis, place-and-route, and bitstream options.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read" aligns with them. It adds useful context about what is read (device, top module, files, flow options) but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral details.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. "Read a project's settings" states the operation immediately, and the following list of settings is compact and complete enough for orientation.
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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the operation and the settings domains. However, because there is no output schema, the agent is left uncertain about the result format, and the project parameter's accepted form is also unspecified.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never directly explains the 'project' parameter or how it should be specified (name, path, ID, etc.). The phrase "a project's settings" only loosely connects the parameter to the operation without compensating for the missing schema description.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: "Read a project's settings," then enumerates the kinds of settings involved. It is not a tautology and is easily understood, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related sibling tools like get_interface_design or get_timing_summary.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.