Retrieve a Vivado design's module and instance hierarchy, optionally filtered by depth or wildcard pattern, to inspect structure before synthesis, implementation, or debugging.
Get the design hierarchy (modules and instances), optionally filtered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Max hierarchy depth (default: 3) | |
| instance_pattern | No | Wildcard pattern (e.g., '*cpu*', 'core/alu/*') |
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 disclosure burden; 'Get' weakly implies read-only, but nothing states scope (current project? elaborated vs synthesized netlist), the default depth behavior, or whether the result is truncated. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a notable gap.
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 waste and the core resource stated immediately. It errs toward terseness rather than padding, but every word carries weight.
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 should convey the return shape (nested tree vs flat list, naming of instances) and preconditions, neither of which appear. An agent knows what to ask for but not what it will get back or when it is valid to call.
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%, so both parameters are already documented including the default depth and pattern syntax examples. The description's 'optionally filtered' adds only a mild framing hint and no syntax or default information beyond the schema, 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 ('Get') and resource ('design hierarchy') and clarifies the payload as 'modules and instances', which distinguishes it from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from related read tools like get_cells or get_scopes, which overlap conceptually with hierarchy traversal.
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?
'optionally filtered' is the only hint about when to supply a filter; there is no statement of when to use this versus get_cells/get_scopes or what state (open project, elaborated design) is required. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.