Close the currently open block design without deleting it, freeing the design session so you can move on to other Vivado tasks. Use it to safely end block design editing without data loss.
Close the currently open block design (without deleting).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-destructiveness ("without deleting"), but the biggest behavioral risk for a close operation — whether unsaved edits are discarded or prompted for — is unaddressed, as is the error behavior when nothing is open.
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?
A single short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded in parentheses. Nothing is padded and 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 parameterless session-state mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the basics but omits the two things an agent most needs: the fate of unsaved changes and the outcome when no design is open.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target design is implicit session state rather than an argument.
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 and resource ("Close the currently open block design") and adds a clarifying parenthetical that rules out deletion. An agent can distinguish it from create_block_design and save_bd_design, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 currently open block design" implies a precondition (a BD must be open) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about what to do if no design is open, and no routing to alternatives such as save_bd_design beforehand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.