Lists simulation objects—signals, ports, or internal items—within a specified scope so you can inspect and filter design hierarchy during Vivado simulation.
List simulation objects in a scope (signals/ports/internal).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | default: / | |
| filter | No |
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, yet it only implies read-only via 'List'. It says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated or capped, hierarchical vs flat listing, or what the default scope '/' means.
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 short sentence with no filler and the key noun up front. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, so brevity is not the failing dimension.
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 partially undocumented parameters, the description should explain the scope-vs-filter relationship and the shape of results. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at call semantics.
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 50%: the filter parameter has a documented enum but no prose, and scope only has 'default: /'. The description's parenthetical ('signals/ports/internal') repeats the filter enum while being attached to 'scope', which risks misleading an agent into passing those values to scope.
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 verb and resource ('List simulation objects') and names the category values, but 'simulation objects' is left undefined and the parenthetical conflates the filter enum with scope. It does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like get_scopes, get_ports, get_nets, or get_cells, which may return overlapping data.
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 statement of when to use this versus get_scopes (to find valid scope paths) or get_ports/get_nets (to enumerate specific object kinds), even though those siblings clearly overlap. An agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.