Retrieve values for up to 50 signals matching a wildcard pattern and choose a radix to inspect simulation signal data.
Get values of multiple signals matching a wildcard pattern (max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radix | No | ||
| pattern | Yes | Signal pattern, e.g. /tb/dut/* |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'max 50' limit is a useful behavioral detail, but it is ambiguous (truncation vs. error?) and the description never states the prerequisite of an active simulation or what the returned values look like, since there is no output schema either.
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 the resource, matching mechanism, and limit in the right order. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that additional clauses would have closed.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description should explain prerequisites (live simulation session), truncation behavior at 50, and the role of radix. None of these are covered.
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 only 50%: pattern is documented with an example, but radix has no description at all. The description never mentions the radix parameter or how it affects returned values, so it fails to compensate for the documented gap.
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 values of multiple signals') plus the matching mechanism ('wildcard pattern'), which implicitly separates it from the singular sibling get_signal_value. It never names that sibling, so the distinction relies on the reader noticing 'multiple' vs. singular.
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 'max 50' cap hints that this is a bulk read and suggests the single-signal sibling for narrower use, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement that it requires an open/active simulation session, and no exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.