Skip to main content
Glama
sinemortal

vivado-red-mcp

by sinemortal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_vivado_doc

Look up bundled topical Vivado documentation summaries and return markdown plus upstream URLs to check procedures for block design, timing, simulation, and Red Pitaya flows.

Instructions

Look up a topical Vivado documentation summary bundled with this server. Returns markdown content + upstream URL. Known topics: block_design, ps7_zynq, timing_constraints, synthesis_strategies, simulation_xsim, red_pitaya_125_14, redpitaya_ps_pl_flow, tcl_quoting, hw_manager, ip_integrator, pitfalls_2020_1.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesTopic name; see KNOWN_TOPICS in the tool description
versionNoTarget Vivado version (cosmetic, default '2020.1')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that content is bundled/static rather than fetched live, that the return is markdown plus an upstream URL, and that the version parameter is merely cosmetic. The gap is undocumented behavior on an unknown topic (error vs. empty result).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded in a single sentence, with the topic vocabulary following as a compact list. The topic enumeration is long but functional, effectively serving as an enum the schema lacks.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only doc lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs (via the topic list), and output shape. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by actually supplying the enumerated topic vocabulary that the schema defers to ('see KNOWN_TOPICS in the tool description'). The version parameter's low stakes are also clarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb + resource ('Look up a topical Vivado documentation summary bundled with this server') and states exactly what comes back (markdown + upstream URL). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_vivado_docs, which an agent would reasonably consider for the same intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

By enumerating the known topics it implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of how it differs from list_vivado_docs. It also doesn't say what the caller should do for a topic not in the list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools