Retrieve bundled board metadata—part, LED pinout, absolute XDC paths, and default synthesis flags—for constraint setup without a Vivado session.
Get bundled metadata for a board: part, LED pinout, absolute XDC paths, default synth flags. Use the returned absolute_path values with add_constraints. No Vivado session required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | Board identifier, e.g. 'red_pitaya_125_14' |
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. 'No Vivado session required' is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure (no start_session prerequisite) and 'Get' implies read-only, but it says nothing about failure modes for unknown board identifiers or whether values are static vs. environment-derived.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the content enumeration is front-loaded and the session-free constraint and downstream usage follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the return payload fields and noting no session is needed. A minor gap remains: it doesn't point to list_boards as the source of valid board identifiers or address error behavior.
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 single `board` parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about identifier format, accepted values, or where valid ids come from, so 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+resource ('Get bundled metadata for a board') and enumerates the returned fields (part, LED pinout, absolute XDC paths, default synth flags), which clearly distinguishes it from list_boards. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.
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?
'Use the returned absolute_path values with add_constraints' gives an explicit downstream workflow and names the consuming sibling. It doesn't say when to call this versus list_boards first, or what happens with an invalid board id, so exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.