Retrieve Vivado messages filtered by severity—error, critical, warning, or all—to diagnose build and implementation issues.
Get Vivado messages filtered by severity (error/critical/warning/all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No | all (default) | error | critical | warning |
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 burden. The verb 'Get' plus a severity filter reasonably conveys a read-only, non-destructive lookup, but it discloses nothing about buffer semantics, result limits, ordering, or whether messages accumulate across sessions — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the filter dimension and its allowed values are given immediately. Nothing here needs trimming.
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 read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could note what a returned message contains or whether results are capped/ordered. As written an agent can call it, but cannot predict the response shape.
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% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the 'all' default. The description restates the enum values without adding format, case-sensitivity, or fallback behavior, 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 Vivado messages') plus a filtering dimension, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling get_simulation_messages (or from get_synthesis_errors_parsed), leaving ambiguity about which message source to pick.
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 parenthetical enumerates the severity values, which implies when to filter by each, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. get_simulation_messages or get_synthesis_errors_parsed. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.