Analyze post-route timing to check if design meets constraints: get constrained vs achievable clock speeds, per-clock setup/hold slack, worst slack, and pass/fail status from timing report.
Post-route timing: constrained vs achievable clock frequencies, setup/hold slack per clock pair, worst slack, and whether timing is met (from .timing.rpt).
| 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 description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by stating that the data comes from <project>.timing.rpt and enumerating the metrics. It does not address edge cases like a missing report or whether timing is recomputed, but for a read-only summary the disclosure is solid.
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 one compact, information-dense sentence with the context front-loaded ('Post-route timing') followed by a precise list of returned metrics. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary restating of the tool name.
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?
The description covers the source report, the returned metrics, and implicitly the read-only nature, which is reinforced by annotations. There is no output schema, but the enumerated fields give an agent enough to know what to expect; missing units or formatting details are minor.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by showing that project is used as the base name in <project>.timing.rpt, giving the single parameter concrete meaning. It does not explain project resolution or validation, but for one obvious string parameter this is adequate.
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 enumerates what the tool reports (constrained vs achievable frequencies, slack per clock pair, worst slack, timing met) and names the source report. It is unambiguous, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_timing_paths.
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?
'Post-route timing' provides clear context about when the tool applies, and the summary content implies aggregate timing-status use. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over get_timing_paths or run_sta_tcl, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.