Compile the implemented design into a Vivado bitstream, wait for the write_bitstream run to finish, and return the final run status plus the .bit file path.
Generate bitstream — launch_runs impl_1 -to_step write_bitstream -> wait_on_run. Returns ground-truth run status and the .bit path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds (default: 3600) |
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 load and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call blocks on wait_on_run, that it returns ground-truth run status and the .bit artifact path, and the 3600s default timeout signals a long-running operation. It omits prerequisites (an open project with a completed implementation) and whether an existing bitstream is overwritten.
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?
One dense sentence with the key artifact and outcome front-loaded; nothing is padded. The embedded Tcl is arguably slightly technical but contributes concrete meaning about what actually runs.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: the operation performed, blocking behavior, and the returned values. Missing only workflow preconditions and output location, which an agent would need to call this confidently in sequence.
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%, so the single optional `timeout` parameter is already fully documented with its default. The description adds nothing about timeout semantics (e.g., behavior on expiry), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 artifact ('Generate bitstream') and backs it with the exact underlying operation (`launch_runs impl_1 -to_step write_bitstream` -> wait_on_run), plus what it yields (.bit path, run status). It is distinguishable from siblings like run_implementation or run_synthesis, though it never names them 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 Tcl equivalent implies this is the step after implementation, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus run_implementation, program_device, or generate_cfgmem. Usage must be inferred from the workflow name rather than read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.