Retrieve the open Vivado project's name, part, target language, and directory to confirm configuration before builds, simulations, or report generation.
Get name, part, target language, directory of the open project.
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload (name, part, target language, directory), which is meaningful behavioral context for a zero-param read, and 'Get' clearly implies read-only. However, it says nothing about failure modes when no project is open, or the shape of the returned value beyond a field list.
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 with the verb and immediately listing the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the tool name as a standalone statement.
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 place return values can be described, and it does list the four fields returned. It falls short of fully covering edge cases (no project open, projects with missing target language) but is adequate for a simple zero-param getter.
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. The description correctly signals a no-argument call that reads state implicitly from the current session.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (the open project), and enumerates the fields returned (name, part, target language, directory). It does not differentiate itself from neighboring read-only tools like session_status, get_host_status, or list_boards, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'of the open project' signals the prerequisite that a project must already be open, which is the key precondition. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of siblings such as open_project or session_status, and no note on error behavior if no project is open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.