Run design rule checks and return parsed violations with severity, code, and message. Use after place or route design to catch DRC problems early.
Run report_drc and return parsed violations list (severity/code/message). Use after place_design/route_design to catch design-rule problems.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload (severity/code/message), which is genuinely useful. It omits preconditions such as needing an open project and an implemented design, and does not say what happens when no violations exist or when the design is unsynthesized.
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 compact sentences: what it returns first, then when to call it. No filler and nothing important buried.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does summarize the return fields, which is the main gap filled. Still missing are the prerequisite design state and any note about failure modes, which matter for a report 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing an unconditional run.
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+resource (run DRC) and adds the return shape (parsed violations list with severity/code/message), which distinguishes it from report siblings like report_power or report_methodology. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls just 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?
Gives timing guidance ('use after place_design/route_design to catch design-rule problems'), which implies when it is useful. However, place_design and route_design are not in the sibling tool list (the nearest is run_implementation), and there is no statement of when not to use it or what precondition state is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.