Reads a specific section of a Vivado report by report ID or file path, using line ranges or regex search to locate relevant context.
Read a section of a previously generated report. Provide report_id (from generate_full_report) or a direct file_path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | ||
| num_lines | No | default: 100 | |
| report_id | No | ||
| start_line | No | 1-indexed (default: 1) | |
| search_pattern | No | Regex to locate a section; returns context around first match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals a read operation, but omits precedence between report_id and file_path, default line ranges, error behavior for missing reports/paths, and whether search_pattern overrides start_line—all discoverable only from the schema.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter sourcing note second. Nothing to trim.
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 five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source-parameter story but not what the response looks like or what a zero-argument call returns (all params are optional). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 60% and the three numeric/regex parameters already carry schema descriptions. The description adds real value by explaining where report_id comes from and that file_path is an alternative, but leaves the two sourcing parameters' relative precedence unstated.
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: reads a section of a previously generated report. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that produces those reports by naming generate_full_report as the source of report_id.
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 description tells the agent it must supply either report_id (produced by generate_full_report) or a direct file_path, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it doesn't say when to choose this over reading the full report or what happens if both/neither are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.