Add Verilog, SystemVerilog, or VHDL files to a Vivado project, optionally set the top module, and update compile order for correct builds.
Add HDL source files (.v/.sv/.vhd) to the current project. Optionally sets the top module and updates compile order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | Absolute paths to HDL source files | |
| fileset | No | Target fileset (default: sources_1) | |
| set_top | No | If given, set this module as project top after adding files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does flag two consequences beyond simple file addition: setting the top module and updating compile order. It does not state permission/precondition requirements (open project), duplicate-file handling, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the optional side effects in the second sentence. Nothing needs trimming.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and side effects but omits prerequisites (open project) and any indication of what is returned or how failures surface. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the accepted file extensions for 'files'; it does not clarify fileset semantics (what a fileset is, what happens to the default sources_1) beyond the schema text.
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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (HDL source files) with accepted formats (.v/.sv/.vhd), which separates it from siblings like add_constraints or add_ip_to_bd. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 phrase 'current project' implies a project must already be open, and 'optionally' signals that set_top is discretionary. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if files already exist in the fileset, and no pointer to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.