Removes all breakpoints from the active Vivado debug session, resetting breakpoint state before rerunning simulation or deployment.
Remove all breakpoints (remove_bps -all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive scope ('all breakpoints') and the equivalent underlying Tcl command, but says nothing about prerequisites, simulation state requirements, side effects, or reversibility.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The parenthetical Tcl command adds useful verification but is slightly technical overhead for an agent that already understands the tool name.
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?
Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action. However, with no annotations, it should do more to clarify the mutation's effect and any required simulation state, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: remove all breakpoints. The scope word 'all' is useful, and the sibling add_breakpoint makes the opposite action obvious. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Remove' and the scope 'all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.