Executes raw TCL commands in Vivado to handle advanced operations not covered by other tools, with an optional timeout for command control.
Execute a raw TCL command in Vivado. Use for advanced ops not covered by other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | TCL command to execute | |
| timeout | No | Optional command timeout in seconds |
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 and largely drops it. It never warns that arbitrary TCL can mutate or destroy project state, never says whether the command runs in the current session context, and never describes what the call returns or how failures surface. Only the word "raw" hints at unrestricted execution.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the routing hint. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
A high-risk escape-hatch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of return values, error handling, or session requirements. Given that the tool can do anything Vivado's TCL interpreter allows, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it safely or predict its result.
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 100%, with both `command` and `timeout` documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax guidance, no note on multi-line commands, and does not mention the timeout behavior at all.
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: execute a raw TCL command, scoped to Vivado. An agent can tell this is an escape hatch rather than a structured operation, but the description never names its nearest sibling run_tcl_script, so the single-command vs. script-file distinction must be inferred from names alone.
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?
"Use for advanced ops not covered by other tools" gives a condition for use, which is more than nothing. But it offers no exclusions, no prerequisites (an active session is presumably required), and no routing to run_tcl_script or the many structured siblings that might do the same job more safely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.