Resolve a bundled board XDC and attach it to the current Vivado project, selecting a variant like 'full' or 'leds_min' for Red Pitaya builds.
Resolve a bundled board XDC and attach it to the current project. Standalone wrapper over get_board_info + add_constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | Board id, e.g. 'red_pitaya_125_14' | |
| variant | No | XDC variant id (e.g. 'leds_min', 'full'). Default: 'full' |
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 load. It does disclose meaningful behavior by revealing the tool's effect equals get_board_info + add_constraints, and "attach it to the current project" signals a state mutation. However, it omits key behavioral facts: whether a project/session must already be open, whether existing constraints are replaced or appended, and whether the operation is idempotent.
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 filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the sibling relationship. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials of what happens are covered. What is missing is the operational precondition (an open project/session, evidenced by "the current project") and the collision behavior when constraints already exist — both material for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions including an example board id and the 'full' default for variant. The description adds nothing beyond "bundled board XDC", so the baseline 3 applies — the schema, not the prose, is doing the parameter work.
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 ("Resolve a bundled board XDC and attach it to the current project") and then anchors it against two named siblings by declaring itself a wrapper over get_board_info + add_constraints. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs from the primitive tools.
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?
Naming get_board_info + add_constraints as the composed operations implicitly tells the agent to use this one-shot tool instead of chaining those two calls. There is no explicit "use when / do not use when" statement or exclusion (e.g. what to do if constraints already exist), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.