Connect two AXI or interface pins in the current block design by specifying source and target endpoints, such as a processing system master to a GPIO slave interface.
Connect two AXI/interface pins in the current block design.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intf_to | Yes | e.g. 'axi_gpio_0/S_AXI' | |
| intf_from | Yes | e.g. 'processing_system7_0/M_AXI_GP0' |
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 says nothing about whether this modifies the design in memory, whether it errors on already-connected pins, whether save_bd_design is required afterward, or what the call returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
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?
With two params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least cover prerequisites (open BD) and mutation side effects. It covers neither, leaving the agent to guess how this fits into the save_bd_design/validate_block_design workflow.
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 100%, and the schema already supplies concrete path examples for both intf_from and intf_to. The description adds only the notion that arguments are pins, not nets — baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Connect) with a specific resource class (AXI/interface pins) and scope (current block design), which implicitly separates it from connect_bd_net and auto_connect_axi. It never names those siblings, so a newcomer must infer the distinction from wording alone.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent how this differs from connect_bd_net (scalar nets) or auto_connect_axi (bulk AXI wiring), nor does it state prerequisites such as an open block design.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.