Connects two scalar pins or ports in the current Vivado block design, letting an AI assistant wire block-design connections without using the GUI.
Connect two scalar pins/ports in the current block design.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin_to | Yes | e.g. 'axi_gpio_0/s_axi_aclk' | |
| pin_from | Yes | e.g. 'processing_system7_0/FCLK_CLK0' |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It says what the tool connects but does not disclose mutation side effects, required design state, error behavior, or return values.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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 two-parameter tool with fully described schema fields, the description is sufficient to identify the operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits design-state prerequisites and failure behavior that would help an agent invoke it reliably.
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 documents both parameters with examples. The description only restates that two pins/ports are connected and adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: connect two scalar pins/ports in the current block design. It implicitly distinguishes itself from interface-net tools by specifying 'scalar pins/ports,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling connect_bd_intf_net.
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?
It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for scalar pin/port connections, but it is not told when to choose this over connect_bd_intf_net or auto_connect_axi.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.