Verilator MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a long-running process, what happens on compilation errors, what permissions are needed, whether it creates files in the output directory, or what the typical output looks like. For a complex compilation tool with 15 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, compilation logs, output file locations), doesn't mention error handling, and provides no behavioral context for a complex compilation process. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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 the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Compile') and resource ('Verilog/SystemVerilog design files') with the target output format ('to C++ using Verilator'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like verilator_simulate (which would run simulations) and verilator_testbenchgenerator (which would generate testbenches).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing Verilator installed), when to choose this over other compilation methods, or how it relates to the sibling tools (verilator_simulate, verilator_testbenchgenerator, verilator_naturallanguage).

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