Launches a persistent Vivado TCL session before project or design tools, so subsequent calls reuse it and avoid repeated ~30s startup delays.
Start a persistent Vivado TCL session. Must be called before project/design tools. Vivado startup is ~30s; the session is reused across tool calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vivado_path | No | Path to vivado(.bat) executable (default: 'vivado' from PATH). |
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 does disclose two valuable behavioral traits: a ~30s startup latency and the fact that the session persists and is reused across calls. It omits what happens if a session is already running (error vs. reuse) and whether the tool returns a handle, which matters for a stateful lifecycle tool.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the ordering constraint front-loaded ahead of the latency note. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
Covers purpose, ordering requirement, startup cost, and session lifetime — enough to call it correctly for a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema. The only meaningful gap is the already-running-session case, which an agent would have to guess.
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?
Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains vivado_path and its PATH default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when structured data does the work.
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 ('Start a persistent Vivado TCL session') and immediately positions it relative to the rest of the toolset ('Must be called before project/design tools'). An agent can distinguish it from session_status, check_session_health, and stop_session without opening any schema.
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 an explicit precondition ('Must be called before project/design tools'), which is the key routing signal among ~80 siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative paths — e.g. whether to call session_status or check_session_health first when a session may already exist, or when to prefer restart over start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.