Sources a .tcl script file in the active Vivado session to replay canonical Red Pitaya/Xilinx reference scripts, with optional timeout control.
Source a .tcl script file in the Vivado session (uses source under the hood). Helpful for replaying canonical Red Pitaya / Xilinx reference scripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to .tcl script | |
| timeout | No | Optional script timeout in seconds |
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, and it does add real value by disclosing that `source` is used — which tells a knowledgeable agent that definitions land in the session's global namespace and persist. It still omits error behavior (does a failed script abort the call? partially execute?), what is returned, and whether `timeout` aborts the session.
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, no filler. The second sentence is slightly promotional ("canonical") but still conveys the replay use case, so nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, what's there is workable, but an arbitrary code execution tool warrants a note on error semantics, side effects on session state, and the distinction from `run_tcl` — none of which are present.
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%, so `path` (absolute .tcl path) and `timeout` are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about either parameter — notably not what happens on timeout expiry.
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?
Specific verb and resource: sources a .tcl file into the Vivado session, with the underlying mechanism (`source`) disclosed. The gap is sibling differentiation — `run_tcl` exists right next to it and the description never says how sourcing a file differs from running a Tcl command string, forcing the agent to infer it.
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?
"Helpful for replaying canonical Red Pitaya / Xilinx reference scripts" implies a usage context (batch/replay of known-good scripts) but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-`run_tcl` guidance and no prerequisites (e.g. session must be started, file must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.