Generates synthesis and simulation output products for a specified Vivado IP module, with optional targets to control what gets built.
Generate IP output products (synthesis + simulation by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | No | default: ['synthesis', 'simulation'] | |
| module_name | Yes |
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 full burden but reveals little: it does not say this writes output products to disk, whether existing products are overwritten, whether an open project/open IP is required, or how long it takes. Only the default target behavior is disclosed.
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 sentence, front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity is closer to under-specification than efficiency. Nothing is wasted, yet more needed to be said.
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-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out prerequisites, the meaning of the required module_name, and any post-call expectations. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently without guessing.
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 50%: targets has a schema default note that the description merely echoes, while the required module_name parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The agent is never told whether module_name is a module identifier, IP VLNV, or project IP name.
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 ("Generate IP output products") and clarifies the default target scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like synth_ip, create_ip, or configure_ip, which an agent must distinguish when choosing among IP-related operations.
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 guidance on when to use this versus synth_ip or upgrade_ip, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., that the IP must already be created/configured and a project open). The only implied usage is the default target list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.