Retrieves parsed Vivado timing summary metrics (WNS, TNS, WHS, THS) to check setup and hold timing after synthesis or implementation.
Get timing summary (WNS, TNS, WHS, THS). Returns parsed metrics by default. Use generate_full_report for raw output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_type | No | summary (default), setup, hold, or all | |
| detail_level | No | summary | standard (+ truncated raw) | full (+ complete raw) |
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 discloses that results are parsed by default and points to an alternative for raw output, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or how errors/empty results are handled.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, and the key behavioral default plus alternative are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read/report tool.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and redirects to the raw-output alternative. It could say more about the returned timing metrics, but the acronyms and default behavior are sufficient for this complexity level.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that parsed metrics are returned by default, without explaining report_type choices or detail_level behavior beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (timing summary) and names the metrics it returns (WNS, TNS, WHS, THS). It also distinguishes itself from generate_full_report for raw output, though it does not clarify its relationship to get_timing_paths.
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?
Gives clear usage context: parsed metrics by default, and directs the agent to generate_full_report when raw output is needed. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against other timing-related siblings such as get_timing_paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.