Modify FPGA project files by adding or removing HDL and SDC files, changing the top module or device, with a backup created automatically.
Edit a project .xml: add or remove HDL files and SDC files, change the top module or the device. A .xml.bak backup is written first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| family | No | ||
| add_sdc | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| add_files | No | ||
| remove_sdc | No | ||
| top_module | No | ||
| remove_files | No | ||
| timing_model | No |
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=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful non-obvious behavior: a .xml.bak backup is written first, which partially mitigates the destructive risk. It does not cover prerequisites or error behavior, but the backup note adds meaningful value beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the backup detail is a separate, valuable addition. Every word earns its place.
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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main edit actions but omits semantics for family and timing_model, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must already exist) or how it interacts with create_project or run_flow. Given the complexity, more detail is needed.
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 must compensate. It maps add_sdc/remove_sdc, add_files/remove_files, top_module, and device, but leaves family and timing_model unexplained. This is a partial compensation, not a complete one.
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 specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('project .xml'), and lists concrete operations: adding/removing HDL and SDC files, changing top module or device. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project and 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 use case—modifying an existing project—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling names like create_project suggest the distinction, but the description relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.