Retrieves clock information and constraints from Vivado designs via report_clocks so you can inspect clock networks and validate timing constraints.
Get clock information and constraints (report_clocks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a non-mutating query, what permissions or session state it requires, or what the response contains (clock names, periods, waveforms, uncertainty, generated clocks) — only the vague phrase "information and constraints."
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 no filler. The parenthetical command mapping is useful; the only minor waste is that "information and constraints" is vague rather than specific.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth about results, yet it does not enumerate what clock data is returned. For a read-only zero-param getter this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the payload.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description cannot and need not add parameter detail.
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 ("Get clock information and constraints") and maps itself to the underlying Vivado command via the parenthetical. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does nothing to separate itself from closely related siblings such as get_timing_summary, get_timing_paths, or report_clock_interaction.
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?
There is no indication of when to call this versus the timing-report siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent must guess whether clocks come from this tool or from get_timing_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.