Submit a feature request for the Vivado MCP server, including title, priority, use case, and description, so it is saved to disk for review.
Submit a feature request for the Vivado MCP server (persisted on disk).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short title | |
| priority | No | ||
| use_case | No | Task that prompted the request | |
| description | Yes | What you need and why |
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 burden. It does disclose that the request is 'persisted on disk', which is useful behavioral context about side effects, but it omits permissions, visibility, duplicate handling, and what happens after submission.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place by stating the action, target, and persistence behavior.
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 submission tool with 75% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and persistence. However, it omits how to retrieve submitted requests and what to expect after submission, leaving moderate 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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 ('Submit a feature request') and adds the scope 'for the Vivado MCP server'. It clearly distinguishes this from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly mention the related `list_feature_requests` sibling.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to submit a request. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.