Skip to main content
Glama
ssql2014

Arcas OnlineEDA MCP Server

by ssql2014

arcas_onlineeda_run_verification

Execute formal, equivalence, power, security, or FPGA verification on electronic design projects to validate functionality and compliance.

Instructions

Run various verification types on OnlineEDA project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNo
verificationTypeNo
optionsNo

Implementation Reference

  • The protected execute method implements the core tool logic: ensures login, navigates to the project verification page, selects verification type, configures options, starts and waits for verification, extracts results using browser automation.
    protected async execute(params: RunVerificationParams): Promise<ToolResult> {
      await this.ensureLoggedIn();
      
      const page = this.browserManager.getPage();
      if (!page) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: 'Browser page not available',
        };
      }
    
      try {
        // Navigate to project verification page
        await page.goto(`https://onlineeda.arcas-da.com/projects/${params.projectId}/verify`, { 
          waitUntil: 'networkidle2' 
        });
        
        // Select verification type
        await page.select('select[name="verificationType"], #verificationType', params.verificationType);
        
        // Configure options if provided
        if (params.options) {
          if (params.options.timeout) {
            await page.type('input[name="timeout"], #timeout', params.options.timeout.toString());
          }
          if (params.options.depth) {
            await page.type('input[name="depth"], #depth', params.options.depth.toString());
          }
        }
        
        // Start verification
        await Promise.all([
          page.click('button.run-verification, button[type="submit"]'),
          page.waitForSelector('.verification-running, .progress-indicator', { timeout: 5000 }),
        ]);
        
        // Wait for verification to complete
        await page.waitForSelector('.verification-complete, .results-ready', { 
          timeout: (params.options?.timeout || 300) * 1000 
        });
        
        // Extract results
        const results = await this.extractVerificationResults(page);
        
        return {
          success: true,
          data: {
            projectId: params.projectId,
            verificationType: params.verificationType,
            results,
          },
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: `Verification failed: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`,
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: projectId (required), verificationType (enum), and optional options object.
    const RunVerificationSchema = z.object({
      projectId: z.string().describe('Project ID to run verification on'),
      verificationType: z.enum(['formal', 'equivalence', 'power', 'security', 'fpga']).describe('Type of verification to run'),
      options: z.object({
        timeout: z.number().optional().describe('Verification timeout in seconds'),
        depth: z.number().optional().describe('Verification depth for formal methods'),
        properties: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe('Specific properties to verify'),
      }).optional(),
    });
  • src/index.ts:52-64 (registration)
    The setupTools method instantiates all tools including RunVerificationTool and registers them in the tools Map using their getName() method.
    private setupTools(): void {
      const toolInstances = [
        new NavigateTool(this.browserManager),
        new ProjectTool(this.browserManager),
        new UploadFileTool(this.browserManager),
        new RunVerificationTool(this.browserManager),
        new NaturalLanguageTool(this.browserManager),
      ];
    
      for (const tool of toolInstances) {
        this.tools.set(tool.getName(), tool);
      }
    }
  • Private helper method to extract verification results from the browser page using DOM selectors and evaluation.
    private async extractVerificationResults(page: any): Promise<VerificationResult> {
      const results = await page.evaluate(() => {
        // Extract verification results from page (selectors need adjustment)
        const passed = document.querySelector('.verification-passed, .status-passed') !== null;
        
        const violations = Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.violation-item, .error-item')).map((el: any) => ({
          type: el.querySelector('.violation-type')?.textContent?.trim() || 'unknown',
          message: el.querySelector('.violation-message')?.textContent?.trim() || '',
          location: el.querySelector('.violation-location')?.textContent?.trim(),
          severity: el.querySelector('.violation-severity')?.textContent?.trim() || 'error',
        }));
        
        const stats = {
          totalChecks: parseInt(document.querySelector('.total-checks')?.textContent || '0'),
          passed: parseInt(document.querySelector('.checks-passed')?.textContent || '0'),
          failed: parseInt(document.querySelector('.checks-failed')?.textContent || '0'),
          warnings: parseInt(document.querySelector('.warnings-count')?.textContent || '0'),
        };
        
        return {
          passed,
          violations,
          statistics: stats,
        };
      });
      
      return results;
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'run various verification types' but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., is it a long-running process, does it modify the project, are there side effects like resource consumption). For a tool with potential complexity (multiple verification types), this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could be more informative. There's no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (multiple verification types, 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how verification outcomes are reported, or the implications of running different verification types. For a tool that likely involves significant processing, this leaves too much unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—no explanation of what 'projectId' refers to, how 'verificationType' choices differ, or what 'options' might include. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('run') and target ('verification on OnlineEDA project'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'verification' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., navigate, project, upload_file), which appear to be unrelated operations. It lacks specificity about the resource being verified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting verification types, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'arcas_onlineeda_project'. Usage is implied only by the action itself, with no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ssql2014/arcas-onlineeda-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server