Run a Vivado power report to obtain parsed total, dynamic, and static wattage totals plus a truncated raw output block; full results are stored at /tmp/vivado_red_mcp/.
Run report_power and return parsed totals (total/dynamic/static W) + a truncated raw block. Full output stored at /tmp/vivado_red_mcp/.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is parsed and truncated, and that full output is stored at /tmp/vivado_red_mcp/, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether running it has side effects.
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 description is two compact clauses with no wasted text. The core purpose and return format are front-loaded, and the storage location is appended only as useful supplementary detail.
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, so the description must explain return values. It does so adequately by naming the parsed totals and the truncated raw block, and by noting where full output is stored. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning typical Vivado report_power options or confirming read-only behavior, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter report tool.
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 are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about parameters.
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 action ('Run report_power') and specifies the returned data (parsed totals for total/dynamic/static W plus a truncated raw block). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other report-oriented siblings such as get_utilization or generate_full_report.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for power reporting, but does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use cases, or related tools like generate_full_report or read_report_section.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.