Validate a Vivado block design and return parsed status, flagging unconnected pins, conflicting CONFIG values, and missing assignments.
Run validate_bd_design and return parsed status. Failures include unconnected pins, conflicting CONFIG values, or missing assignments.
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns parsed status and what kinds of validation failures can appear, but it does not explicitly state that validation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it describe response structure or 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the command being run and followed by useful failure categories. There is no wasted text.
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 zero-parameter validation tool without an output schema, the description gives enough to understand what it does and what kinds of problems it reports. It could add a sentence confirming that it is non-mutating and how the parsed status is shaped, but no critical information is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 for a zero-parameter tool.
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 and resource: it runs the Vivado 'validate_bd_design' command and returns parsed status. That clearly distinguishes it from BD mutation tools such as connect_bd_net or save_bd_design, though it does not explicitly contrast with reporting siblings like report_drc.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the listed failure classes, which suggest running it after assembling a block design. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as report_drc, report_ip_status, or when not to run it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.